Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0410-3 (2015)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Colorectal Anastomotic Healing: Why the biologic al processes that lead to anastomotic  
leakage should be revealed prior to conducting intervention studies.  
 
Version: 0 Date: 18 Oct 2015  
 
Reviewer: Guillaume Bouguen  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Anastomotic leakage is a common issue for surgeon but remains poorly investigated despite 
numerous papers on the topic. Authors gave their point of view in this manuscript of where we 
should go from here. The draft is well organ ize and I have only a few minor comments  
On the background section author should add current known clinical and non -clinical risk factor 
for anastomotic leakage. This is important for the reader to integrate a general overview of this 
surgical issue. Inde ed anastomotic healing is one way to approach the question another way is to 
figure out the background and which patient might develop AL  
I would remove "depth" overview trough the manuscript because this is not a depth review but a 
use of the current re view to point out the view of the authors.  
First paragraph of the discussion should be removed because is redundant with the end of the 
background section. This section should start with the first sub -head.  
All referenceq should be adjusted according to author guidelines.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately sup ported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the 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.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complet e a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or sal ary 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 p ublication 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 organizati on 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 an swer 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.  
 
No competing interest  
 
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 websi te along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under a n 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 name d report 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