Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02712-8 (2023)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON SURGICAL OPTIONS FOR
PATIENTS UNDERGOING ANTIREFLUX SURGERY: A SINGLE-CENTER
QUESTIONNAIRE-BASED SURVEY
Version: 
0 
Date: 
07 Dec 2022
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?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
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?
No - there are minor issues
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 overall impression of the study is good. The
study provides a snapshot of various age groups and overall results. The authors
studied and explored the sources of information on the surgical options of
patients undergoing antireflux surgery in China at a provincial-level tertiary
hospital and the center of GERD via a telephonic survey based on a
questionnaire for the period spanning from January 2016 to June 2021. The
media and family and friends outnumbered the physicians and hospitals as
source of information. The additional aspects included age and education of the
patients and referral rate by different departments in the hospitals. 
The objective,
study design, execution, and interpretation are all reasonable. However, the
discussion and conclusion may be improved. The media may be promoting new
technology by corporate sector and promoting their business while the relatives
and friends may be influenced by short term results and less morbidity in the
immediate post operative period. The physicians and hospitals will weigh the
risk and benefits with a personalized plan that may be more safe and effective as
seen in the younger patients. Therefore in the conclusion media, family, and
friends could be a double-edged sword and may be counterproductive in the long
run. Although the new technology has lowered the mortality and morbidity,
looking at the overall results in long term, complete resolution is only seen in a
minority. The enthusiasm in urology for vesicoureteral reflux resolution by
interventional or surgical means has faded with time and evidence-based
circumstances, which may well be true for GERD as well.
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
Interpretation can be improved and experimental, clinical and recent
investigative evidence-based observations with hind gut being primary, midgut
secondary and foregut having tertiary effects by various secretolotility disorders
may well change the future management of GERD with an emphasis on
correcting primary and secondary effects and the tertiary effects may resolve
automatically. These references may be looked at to understand the relationship
and tip of the iceberg effect, as foregut symptoms are easy to detect and may be
bothersome to patients because they affect oropharynx, nasopharynx and
laryngopharynx while the midgut and hind gut may have shock absorbing power
and very little or no obvious symptoms: 
Govani DJ, Trambadia RA, Chhaniara
RA, Mirani ZR, Corracia RC Midha PK, Patel RV. "Is anemia frequently
recognized in gastroschisis compared to omphalocele? A multicenter
retrospective study in southern Japan" by Sugita, K et al Ped Surg Intl
Submission ID 275f1188-27e3-472d-8c80-85f57a1cd539, DOI: 10.1007/s00383-
022-05288-8 
Trambadia RA, Anthony FM, Chhaniara RA, Govani DR, Correia
RC, Patel RV. Hirschsprung- Associated recurrent enterocolitis in a case of
trisomy 21 an atrioventricular septal defect. Front Infect Diseases Microbiol.
2022; 2: 110-13. 
Patel RV, Anthony FM, Govani ND, Govani DR, Panchasara
N, Patel RR, Corracia R. Abdominal Wall Defects and Hernias-lessons learnt
from observations from the experimental fetal surgery gastroschisis model in
rabbits and their clinical extrapolation. Medp Pediatr Child Health Care. 2022;
1(1): mppchc-202201001, 2022, 1: 8-15.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: 
The language may be improved by taking professional language editing services
or personal help from a native English speaker.
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 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.
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 small honorarium for completing the review within a specified
timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer
recommendation.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
Web of Science Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification
of this review directly to a Web of Science researcher profile (a subsidiary of
Clarivate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, please
click on the “Yes” option below. Your name, email address, title of the reviewed
manuscript, name of the journal, and date of your review submission (the
“Review Data”) will then be transmitted to Web of Science after the final
decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have already registered with
Web of Science for a 
Web of Science researcher profile (this service was
previously known as “Publons”), they will notify you of the receipt of this
review and update your profile as per your settings and their policy. If you are
not registered with Web of Science, you will receive an email from them asking
you to register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Web of Science may use the Review Data to generate derivative
metadata for the benefit of Web of Science and you as a reviewer, carefully
considering the sensitivity of such information. For example, Web of Science
may verify your record as a reviewer by updating your profile published on its
webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors to identify
candidate reviewers. Please find the details of processing in Web of Science’s
privacy policy 
https://clarivate.com/privacy-center/notices-policies/privacy-
policy/
No