Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03452-z (2024)

Title: Analysis of the Correlation between Defunctioning Stoma and Postoperative Low
Anterior Resection Syndrome in Rectal Cancer#A prospective cohort study
Version: 5 Date: 08 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Yuhan et al. have adequately addressed the reviewers' comments. Only the following MINOR
points should be checked and corrected. This paper has a number of minor deficiencies. For
future submissions, the authors are advised to revise multiple times before submitting the final
version of the paper.
The paper is commendable for being a prospective cohort with a large number of cases, and
although the results are not strikingly novel, they are informative for the reader.
1. L60 ‘were’ rather than ‘are’ would be more appropriate.
2. L98 Align the period and the reference number.
3. L121 Please insert a new line before ‘Data collection’.
4. L145 ‘aimed’ instead of ‘aim’ would be more appropriate.
5. L149 ‘We compared’ instead of ‘We will also compare’ would be more appropriate.
6. L157 ‘was completed’ instead of ‘is completed’ would be more appropriate.
7. L170 Please insert a new line before ‘Results’.
8. L176 ‘was 115’ instead of ‘is 115’ would be more appropriate.
9. L177 ‘It is important to clarify that the number of patients changed over the follow-up period
as shown in Table 3. L577 ‘It is important to clarify that the number of patients changed over
the follow-up period as indicated in Table 3.’ would be more appropriate.
10. L578 Table 3 would be clearer if the total number of patients was shown in the second line.
Why not add a line as follows.
research indicators
1st row
(1st line) LARS occurred 3 months after surgery
(2nd line) yes / no
(3rd line) Number of patients; yes 185 (38.5%) no 295 (61.5%)
2nd row
(1st line)LARS occurred 6 months after surgery
(2nd line) yes / no
(3rd line) Number of patients; yes 138 (29.2%) no 335 (70.8%)
3rd row
(1st line)LARS occurred 12 months after surgery
(2nd line) yes / no
(3rd line) Number of patients; yes73 (16.2%) 378 (83.8%)
11. L183 ‘was that’ rather than ‘is that’ would be more appropriate.
12. L201 ‘was a’ rather than ‘is a’ would be more appropriate.
13. L204 ‘was determined’ rather than ‘is determined’ would be appropriate.
14.L265 ‘the study by Sandberg, S. et al (9)’, (9) is a paper by Croese AD. Please state
the reference accurately. Also, is there any reason why only Sandberg's name is dared to be
mentioned when there are four references (9), (13), (14) and (15)?’ It seems to me that ‘several
previous reports’ would be acceptable.
15.    L270 Why is reference (16) listed here in the text; it would be easier to read if L265 was
listed as ‘Winslet M.C., et al.(16)’.
16.   L281 Delete the space between (8) and (17).
17. L282 ‘prolonged inactivity of the pelvic floor and sphincter complex after ileostomy
contributes to the development of LARS ’, but the phrase ‘may contribute to the development
of LARS’ would be more appropriate.
18. L301 ‘..’ Delete one period.
19.   L310 Why is reference (19) listed here in the text; it would be easier to read if it was listed
as ‘Lertsithichai P, et al.(19)’ in L306.
20. L320 Delete the space between (21) and (19). Is the order of references (21) (19) (22) (23)
appropriate? If there is no specific intention, then (19) (21) (22) (23) should be used.
21.         L324 ‘..’ Delete one period.
22. L342 Delete the space between (24) and (26) and (27).
23. L389 ‘Kneist first compared a small group of patients undergoing proctocolectomy with
IONM with a control group and showed a trend towards impaired anorectal function and reduced
sexual dysfunction in the IONM group.’. Please provide references.
24. L431 ‘distance’ rather than ‘diatance’ would be more appropriate.