Title: A comprehensive scoring system for the better prediction of bowel resection in pediatric
intussusception
Version: 1 Date: 13 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The objective of authors was to investigate and develop a scoring
system for the better prediction of bowel resection in pediatric intussusception is good. Although
the study design is retrospective, its a very large collaborative multi-institutional university
teaching hospitals series spread over more than a decade with large number of patients. It's
execution and interpretation seem reasonable. The overall impression is good. However, there
are certain areas where improvements can be done and the value of the study can be better
presented.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The title can be modified to ""A comprehensive scoring system for the better prediction of
bowel resection in pediatric intussusception"" as the authors have used clinical, laboratory and
imaging modalities in the scoring system. In the abstract section under methodology section the
duration of the study is mentioned as April 2008 and December 2020, while in the manuscript
text under patient population it is between January 2011 and May 2021 and similarly in the
results section it is from April 2008 to December 2020. The authors need to explain the difference
and correct it accordingly please. There is increasing evidence that one of the risk factors or
predisposing factor in the causation  of intussusception is colorectal motility disorders previously
categorised as chronic constipation whether any of the patients exhibited such clinical criteria
in the detailed history preoperatively and second important aspect is the congenital anomaly in
the vascular arcade at the water shade areas of the ileocecal, splenic flexure and rectosigmoid
junctions whether such findings are recorded in the operative note or evidence of chronic fecal
retention like reversed rectosigmoid ratio, etc  may enhance not only  the scoring system but
may help in wider perspective as well.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Certainly the language  need to be improved by using professional editing service or by a
professional individual whose first language is English"
Title: A comprehensive scoring system for the better prediction of bowel resection in pediatric
intussusception
Version: 1 Date: 13 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The objective of authors was to investigate and develop a scoring
system for the better prediction of bowel resection in pediatric intussusception is good. Although
the study design is retrospective, its a very large collaborative multi-institutional university
teaching hospitals series spread over more than a decade with large number of patients. It's
execution and interpretation seem reasonable. The overall impression is good. However, there
are certain areas where improvements can be done and the value of the study can be better
presented.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The title can be modified to ""A comprehensive scoring system for the better prediction of
bowel resection in pediatric intussusception"" as the authors have used clinical, laboratory and
imaging modalities in the scoring system. In the abstract section under methodology section the
duration of the study is mentioned as April 2008 and December 2020, while in the manuscript
text under patient population it is between January 2011 and May 2021 and similarly in the
results section it is from April 2008 to December 2020. The authors need to explain the difference
and correct it accordingly please. There is increasing evidence that one of the risk factors or
predisposing factor in the causation  of intussusception is colorectal motility disorders previously
categorised as chronic constipation whether any of the patients exhibited such clinical criteria
in the detailed history preoperatively and second important aspect is the congenital anomaly in
the vascular arcade at the water shade areas of the ileocecal, splenic flexure and rectosigmoid
junctions whether such findings are recorded in the operative note or evidence of chronic fecal
retention like reversed rectosigmoid ratio, etc  may enhance not only  the scoring system but
may help in wider perspective as well.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Certainly the language  need to be improved by using professional editing service or by a
professional individual whose first language is English"
Please review this paper.
user
Title: A comprehensive scoring system for the better prediction of bowel resection in pediatric
intussusception
Version: 1 Date: 13 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The objective of authors was to investigate and develop a scoring
system for the better prediction of bowel resection in pediatric intussusception is good. Although
the study design is retrospective, its a very large collaborative multi-institutional university
teaching hospitals series spread over more than a decade with large number of patients. It's
execution and interpretation seem reasonable. The overall impression is good. However, there
are certain areas where improvements can be done and the value of the study can be better
presented.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The title can be modified to ""A comprehensive scoring system for the better prediction of
bowel resection in pediatric intussusception"" as the authors have used clinical, laboratory and
imaging modalities in the scoring system. In the abstract section under methodology section the
duration of the study is mentioned as April 2008 and December 2020, while in the manuscript
text under patient population it is between January 2011 and May 2021 and similarly in the
results section it is from April 2008 to December 2020. The authors need to explain the difference
and correct it accordingly please. There is increasing evidence that one of the risk factors or
predisposing factor in the causation  of intussusception is colorectal motility disorders previously
categorised as chronic constipation whether any of the patients exhibited such clinical criteria
in the detailed history preoperatively and second important aspect is the congenital anomaly in
the vascular arcade at the water shade areas of the ileocecal, splenic flexure and rectosigmoid
junctions whether such findings are recorded in the operative note or evidence of chronic fecal
retention like reversed rectosigmoid ratio, etc  may enhance not only  the scoring system but
may help in wider perspective as well.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Certainly the language  need to be improved by using professional editing service or by a
professional individual whose first language is English"
assistant