Title: Predictive Model for Identification of Gangrenous or Perforated Appendicitis in Adults:
A Multicenter Retrospective Study
Version: 4 Date: 14 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Sushila Kumar Pattanaik
Reviewer's report:
Good observation and optimal analysis. Minor revision will make it more impressive.
1. It would be better if the title is changed to 'Predictive model for identification of gangrenous
or perforated appendicitis in adults: a multicenter retrospective study',  because gangrene and
perforation are different complications.
2. In 'abstract' section, similarly, you can change 'gangrene and perforation are serious
complications of acute appendicitis having a higher mortality....'
3. In the 'background' section, please ignore and omit the sentence 'Evidence suggests
that......undergoing appendectomy' as it is the result for operated group and not for those treated
with antibiotics alone under Reference no 6.
4. The purpose of training group and testing group may be explained in the first instance. The
cases and controls may be defined mentioning the study design.
5. In 'study variables' section, please explain why CRP was not taken as a study variable although
it was taken in reviewed literature  (e.g. Ref 16,18,19,21,22).
6. In 'discussion' section, Ref no 23 may be deleted as the variables do not differentiate  between
complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis and rest are to be cited correctly. Also please
explain which variables lost significance in different levels of analysis (e.g. NLR, Fg, PCT, Tbil)
although it is mentioned under results.
Title: Predictive Model for Identification of Gangrenous or Perforated Appendicitis in Adults:
A Multicenter Retrospective Study
Version: 4 Date: 14 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Sushila Kumar Pattanaik
Reviewer's report:
Good observation and optimal analysis. Minor revision will make it more impressive.
1. It would be better if the title is changed to 'Predictive model for identification of gangrenous
or perforated appendicitis in adults: a multicenter retrospective study',  because gangrene and
perforation are different complications.
2. In 'abstract' section, similarly, you can change 'gangrene and perforation are serious
complications of acute appendicitis having a higher mortality....'
3. In the 'background' section, please ignore and omit the sentence 'Evidence suggests
that......undergoing appendectomy' as it is the result for operated group and not for those treated
with antibiotics alone under Reference no 6.
4. The purpose of training group and testing group may be explained in the first instance. The
cases and controls may be defined mentioning the study design.
5. In 'study variables' section, please explain why CRP was not taken as a study variable although
it was taken in reviewed literature  (e.g. Ref 16,18,19,21,22).
6. In 'discussion' section, Ref no 23 may be deleted as the variables do not differentiate  between
complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis and rest are to be cited correctly. Also please
explain which variables lost significance in different levels of analysis (e.g. NLR, Fg, PCT, Tbil)
although it is mentioned under results.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Predictive Model for Identification of Gangrenous or Perforated Appendicitis in Adults:
A Multicenter Retrospective Study
Version: 4 Date: 14 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Sushila Kumar Pattanaik
Reviewer's report:
Good observation and optimal analysis. Minor revision will make it more impressive.
1. It would be better if the title is changed to 'Predictive model for identification of gangrenous
or perforated appendicitis in adults: a multicenter retrospective study',  because gangrene and
perforation are different complications.
2. In 'abstract' section, similarly, you can change 'gangrene and perforation are serious
complications of acute appendicitis having a higher mortality....'
3. In the 'background' section, please ignore and omit the sentence 'Evidence suggests
that......undergoing appendectomy' as it is the result for operated group and not for those treated
with antibiotics alone under Reference no 6.
4. The purpose of training group and testing group may be explained in the first instance. The
cases and controls may be defined mentioning the study design.
5. In 'study variables' section, please explain why CRP was not taken as a study variable although
it was taken in reviewed literature  (e.g. Ref 16,18,19,21,22).
6. In 'discussion' section, Ref no 23 may be deleted as the variables do not differentiate  between
complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis and rest are to be cited correctly. Also please
explain which variables lost significance in different levels of analysis (e.g. NLR, Fg, PCT, Tbil)
although it is mentioned under results.
assistant