Title: Advances in the management of gallbladder polyps: Establishment of predictive models
and the rise of gallbladder-preserving polypectomy procedures
Version: 1 Date: 09 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
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 - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Dear authors
Thank you for your interesting review.
I would suggest to be more precise and accurate in reporting results about surgical procedures.
Please add detailed data on complications, complications rate of cholecystectomy and
cholecystitis-sparing procedures. This is mandatory for a clinical review.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Please see my comments above."
Title: Advances in the management of gallbladder polyps: Establishment of predictive models
and the rise of gallbladder-preserving polypectomy procedures
Version: 1 Date: 09 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
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 - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Dear authors
Thank you for your interesting review.
I would suggest to be more precise and accurate in reporting results about surgical procedures.
Please add detailed data on complications, complications rate of cholecystectomy and
cholecystitis-sparing procedures. This is mandatory for a clinical review.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Please see my comments above."
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Advances in the management of gallbladder polyps: Establishment of predictive models
and the rise of gallbladder-preserving polypectomy procedures
Version: 1 Date: 09 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
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 - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Dear authors
Thank you for your interesting review.
I would suggest to be more precise and accurate in reporting results about surgical procedures.
Please add detailed data on complications, complications rate of cholecystectomy and
cholecystitis-sparing procedures. This is mandatory for a clinical review.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Please see my comments above."
assistant