Reviewer's report
Title:Acute severe peritonitis due to typhoid intestinal perforation: primary repair
vs intestinal resection, associated with laparostomy. Results of a systematic
surgical approach in northwestern Benin.
Version: 2Date:17 February 2013
Reviewer: Abdulrasheed Nasir
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
1. Result : 37 patients were not included in the analysis including those lost to
follow up, those that discharge before revision time and those that died. The
number of patient in each category will need to be supplied.
2. Discussion should not be included in the result section
3. The result were not succinctly presented for example 111 patient had
laparatomy, perforation was document in 104 which should be the basis for
further analysis. But 37 had only one laparatomy because of discharge, lost to
follow up and death. Is these 37 out of the total 111 or 37 out of 104 with
perforation these will need clarification
4. the overall complication will need to be mention and relate it with surgical
technique rather than stating it with each revision making it confusing.
5. The overall mortality was not clear! More than half of patient with initial
laparatomy died ? The mortality could be determined for 84 patients! Group A
mortality was 40% and Group B was 35.5%. Absolute number will be necessary
here. The authors also stated an overall mortality of 21.2%. These are quite
confusing and need clarification.
5. There are so many tables with repetition of what was presented in results.
Table 1,2,4 were not necessary.
Minor essential revisions
1 Thorough Clinical evaluation will be adequate in most instances to detect
patient with complication.
2 The hypothesis in this study is not clear! Is it evaluating the safety of revision
laparostomy or Just comparing the two operation techniques
3 The limitation of this work need to be mentioned.
4. Late presentation was mention but duration of symptom before presentation
was not provided.
5. The title is complex and can be modified as: Comparative analysis of Primary
repair vs resection and anastomosis in management of TIP.
4. The methodology was fairly described. However, the indication for primary
repair or resection was not clearly stated in the methodology
Discreationary revision
1. The presentation of the result need to be more organized for ready to be able
to make meaning out of this.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Acute severe peritonitis due to typhoid intestinal perforation: primary repair
vs intestinal resection, associated with laparostomy. Results of a systematic
surgical approach in northwestern Benin.
Version: 2Date:17 February 2013
Reviewer: Abdulrasheed Nasir
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
1. Result : 37 patients were not included in the analysis including those lost to
follow up, those that discharge before revision time and those that died. The
number of patient in each category will need to be supplied.
2. Discussion should not be included in the result section
3. The result were not succinctly presented for example 111 patient had
laparatomy, perforation was document in 104 which should be the basis for
further analysis. But 37 had only one laparatomy because of discharge, lost to
follow up and death. Is these 37 out of the total 111 or 37 out of 104 with
perforation these will need clarification
4. the overall complication will need to be mention and relate it with surgical
technique rather than stating it with each revision making it confusing.
5. The overall mortality was not clear! More than half of patient with initial
laparatomy died ? The mortality could be determined for 84 patients! Group A
mortality was 40% and Group B was 35.5%. Absolute number will be necessary
here. The authors also stated an overall mortality of 21.2%. These are quite
confusing and need clarification.
5. There are so many tables with repetition of what was presented in results.
Table 1,2,4 were not necessary.
Minor essential revisions
1 Thorough Clinical evaluation will be adequate in most instances to detect
patient with complication.
2 The hypothesis in this study is not clear! Is it evaluating the safety of revision
laparostomy or Just comparing the two operation techniques
3 The limitation of this work need to be mentioned.
4. Late presentation was mention but duration of symptom before presentation
was not provided.
5. The title is complex and can be modified as: Comparative analysis of Primary
repair vs resection and anastomosis in management of TIP.
4. The methodology was fairly described. However, the indication for primary
repair or resection was not clearly stated in the methodology
Discreationary revision
1. The presentation of the result need to be more organized for ready to be able
to make meaning out of this.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Acute severe peritonitis due to typhoid intestinal perforation: primary repair
vs intestinal resection, associated with laparostomy. Results of a systematic
surgical approach in northwestern Benin.
Version: 2Date:17 February 2013
Reviewer: Abdulrasheed Nasir
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
1. Result : 37 patients were not included in the analysis including those lost to
follow up, those that discharge before revision time and those that died. The
number of patient in each category will need to be supplied.
2. Discussion should not be included in the result section
3. The result were not succinctly presented for example 111 patient had
laparatomy, perforation was document in 104 which should be the basis for
further analysis. But 37 had only one laparatomy because of discharge, lost to
follow up and death. Is these 37 out of the total 111 or 37 out of 104 with
perforation these will need clarification
4. the overall complication will need to be mention and relate it with surgical
technique rather than stating it with each revision making it confusing.
5. The overall mortality was not clear! More than half of patient with initial
laparatomy died ? The mortality could be determined for 84 patients! Group A
mortality was 40% and Group B was 35.5%. Absolute number will be necessary
here. The authors also stated an overall mortality of 21.2%. These are quite
confusing and need clarification.
5. There are so many tables with repetition of what was presented in results.
Table 1,2,4 were not necessary.
Minor essential revisions
1 Thorough Clinical evaluation will be adequate in most instances to detect
patient with complication.
2 The hypothesis in this study is not clear! Is it evaluating the safety of revision
laparostomy or Just comparing the two operation techniques
3 The limitation of this work need to be mentioned.
4. Late presentation was mention but duration of symptom before presentation
was not provided.
5. The title is complex and can be modified as: Comparative analysis of Primary
repair vs resection and anastomosis in management of TIP.
4. The methodology was fairly described. However, the indication for primary
repair or resection was not clearly stated in the methodology
Discreationary revision
1. The presentation of the result need to be more organized for ready to be able
to make meaning out of this.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant