Reviewer’s report  
 
Title: Colorectal Anastomotic Healing: Why the biological processes that lead to anastomotic 
leakage should be revealed prior to conducting intervention studies.  
 
Version: 0 Date: 01 Oct 2015  
 
Reviewer: Marco  Allaix  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The aim of the authors was to perform a review of the literature regarding the healing of 
gastrointestinal anastomoses.  
I have several concerns:  
1. Abstract - the discussion section (page 2) includes a sentence "We provide.... currently 
used." that should be written at the end of the background section as the aim of the study.  
2. Abstract - there is no results section.  
3. Background - last paragraph s hould be reported in a separate Materials and methods 
section to explain in details to the readers how the literature search was performed, the 
inclusion criteria and the exclusion criteria, how many papers were included, etc...  
4. Background - the last se ntence at page 4, lines 23 -29 is unclear: please better clarify the 3 
items.  
5. A Results section for each item is missing. Some tables summarizing the articles 
published in the literature on each topic might help the readership better understand the 
probl em. 
6. Unpublished data should not be reported in this type of articles. Therefore, please remove 
the sentence at page 6, lines 4 -9. 
7. I suggest to add a section on the bacterial hypothesis (e.g. Alverdy et al. published several 
papers on this topic)  
8. Discussion - the last sentence at page 4 is very similar to the last sentence of the 
Background section, so it can be removed.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary co ntrols?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any stat istics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the followin g questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests  in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
I agree to the open p eer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the aut hors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which  I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer’s report  
 
Title: Colorectal Anastomotic Healing: Why the biological processes that lead to anastomotic 
leakage should be revealed prior to conducting intervention studies.  
 
Version: 0 Date: 01 Oct 2015  
 
Reviewer: Marco  Allaix  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The aim of the authors was to perform a review of the literature regarding the healing of 
gastrointestinal anastomoses.  
I have several concerns:  
1. Abstract - the discussion section (page 2) includes a sentence "We provide.... currently 
used." that should be written at the end of the background section as the aim of the study.  
2. Abstract - there is no results section.  
3. Background - last paragraph s hould be reported in a separate Materials and methods 
section to explain in details to the readers how the literature search was performed, the 
inclusion criteria and the exclusion criteria, how many papers were included, etc...  
4. Background - the last se ntence at page 4, lines 23 -29 is unclear: please better clarify the 3 
items.  
5. A Results section for each item is missing. Some tables summarizing the articles 
published in the literature on each topic might help the readership better understand the 
probl em. 
6. Unpublished data should not be reported in this type of articles. Therefore, please remove 
the sentence at page 6, lines 4 -9. 
7. I suggest to add a section on the bacterial hypothesis (e.g. Alverdy et al. published several 
papers on this topic)  
8. Discussion - the last sentence at page 4 is very similar to the last sentence of the 
Background section, so it can be removed.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary co ntrols?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any stat istics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the followin g questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests  in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
I agree to the open p eer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the aut hors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which  I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’s report  
 
Title: Colorectal Anastomotic Healing: Why the biological processes that lead to anastomotic 
leakage should be revealed prior to conducting intervention studies.  
 
Version: 0 Date: 01 Oct 2015  
 
Reviewer: Marco  Allaix  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The aim of the authors was to perform a review of the literature regarding the healing of 
gastrointestinal anastomoses.  
I have several concerns:  
1. Abstract - the discussion section (page 2) includes a sentence "We provide.... currently 
used." that should be written at the end of the background section as the aim of the study.  
2. Abstract - there is no results section.  
3. Background - last paragraph s hould be reported in a separate Materials and methods 
section to explain in details to the readers how the literature search was performed, the 
inclusion criteria and the exclusion criteria, how many papers were included, etc...  
4. Background - the last se ntence at page 4, lines 23 -29 is unclear: please better clarify the 3 
items.  
5. A Results section for each item is missing. Some tables summarizing the articles 
published in the literature on each topic might help the readership better understand the 
probl em. 
6. Unpublished data should not be reported in this type of articles. Therefore, please remove 
the sentence at page 6, lines 4 -9. 
7. I suggest to add a section on the bacterial hypothesis (e.g. Alverdy et al. published several 
papers on this topic)  
8. Discussion - the last sentence at page 4 is very similar to the last sentence of the 
Background section, so it can be removed.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary co ntrols?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any stat istics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the followin g questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests  in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
I agree to the open p eer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the aut hors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which  I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant