Title: Prognostic clinical indexes for prediction of acute gangrenous cholecystitis and acute
purulent cholecystitis
Version: 4 Date: 17 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
I congratulate authors for performing this intresting work wich attempted to establish a predictive
model for the differentiations of APC, AGC and GC from CC using clinical indexes. I found
the idea very original. Nevertheless i have some questions and concerns:
-First, it's about the small simple size (114 patients)
-Second, I would ask about the distinction between GC and AGC, i advise to include this in
the same group
-Third, i advise to use the MannWhitney U-test instead of t-test for continus variables
- Forth, the Tokyo Guidlines 2013 should be replaced by Tokyo Guidlines 2018
-Fifth, the authors affirmed that: ''Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was the first choice of surgery.
'' but we see that 97 patients underwent direct laparotomy, did the authors have an explanation?
Moreover, the rate of conversion was very high (more than 50%) did the authors have an
explanation?
Title: Prognostic clinical indexes for prediction of acute gangrenous cholecystitis and acute
purulent cholecystitis
Version: 4 Date: 17 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
I congratulate authors for performing this intresting work wich attempted to establish a predictive
model for the differentiations of APC, AGC and GC from CC using clinical indexes. I found
the idea very original. Nevertheless i have some questions and concerns:
-First, it's about the small simple size (114 patients)
-Second, I would ask about the distinction between GC and AGC, i advise to include this in
the same group
-Third, i advise to use the MannWhitney U-test instead of t-test for continus variables
- Forth, the Tokyo Guidlines 2013 should be replaced by Tokyo Guidlines 2018
-Fifth, the authors affirmed that: ''Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was the first choice of surgery.
'' but we see that 97 patients underwent direct laparotomy, did the authors have an explanation?
Moreover, the rate of conversion was very high (more than 50%) did the authors have an
explanation?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Prognostic clinical indexes for prediction of acute gangrenous cholecystitis and acute
purulent cholecystitis
Version: 4 Date: 17 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
I congratulate authors for performing this intresting work wich attempted to establish a predictive
model for the differentiations of APC, AGC and GC from CC using clinical indexes. I found
the idea very original. Nevertheless i have some questions and concerns:
-First, it's about the small simple size (114 patients)
-Second, I would ask about the distinction between GC and AGC, i advise to include this in
the same group
-Third, i advise to use the MannWhitney U-test instead of t-test for continus variables
- Forth, the Tokyo Guidlines 2013 should be replaced by Tokyo Guidlines 2018
-Fifth, the authors affirmed that: ''Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was the first choice of surgery.
'' but we see that 97 patients underwent direct laparotomy, did the authors have an explanation?
Moreover, the rate of conversion was very high (more than 50%) did the authors have an
explanation?
assistant