Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01350-8 (2020)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Predictors of surgical site infection after pancreaticoduodenectomy  
 
Version: 1 Date: 03 Feb 2020  
 
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1  
 
Reviewer's re port:  
 
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?  
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow 
confidence in the results?  
No - there are minor issues  
 
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have be en used in the study  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
No - there are minor issues  
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically 
sound? If not, can rev isions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Probably - with minor revisions  
 
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS:  
Retrospective analysis of a single centre experience of SSI post PD. Clearly written but I do 
wonder what the manuscript will a dd to the literature.  
 
 
 
 
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
The authors have presented their experience on SSI post PD. The manuscript is clearly written 
but a couple of comments.  
1. in the abstract and manuscript I would state a single centre retrospective analysis  
2. m aybe of use to state primary aim identify risk factors for SSI post PD and secondary aim 
associated complications of SSI ie DGE, increased LOS  
3. over the 10 years period has there been any change in practice?  
4. state what your standard practice is for an tibiotic prophylaxis ie pre -op, skin prep, peri -op and 
adjustment according to intra -op biliary culture.  
5. should state how many cases for cancer  
6. feeding protocols pre and post surgery.  
7. the authors need to expand their result section ie explain more  clearly the findings summarised 
in the tables  
8. In the discussion, should summarise other reports in the literature, maybe a table of use? Then 
it puts the present paper in context and builds upon the already published literature.  
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: Have mentioned above. But would emphasise the 
importance of putting their findings in the context of world literature.  
 
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 controls?  
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.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in th e 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.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following 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 an y 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 co mpeting 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with  
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer has  
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License  
attributed to Research Square and was paid a s mall honorarium for completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer  
recommendation.  
 
I agree  to the open peer 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 alon g with the authors'  
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 repor t 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