Review for 10.1186/s12876-021-02046-3 (2021)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Comparison of different embolic particles for superior rectal arterial
embolization of chronic hemorrhoidal bleeding: gelfoam versus microparticle
Version: 
0 
Date: 
14 Aug 2021
Reviewer: 
Yuliia Medkova
Reviewer's report:
This retrospective study by involving 41 patients who suffered from
hemorrhoidal bleeding compared the outcomes of superior rectal arterial
embolization with different types of agents. It should be noted that study design,
statistical analysis and discussion are clear and logical. The images are
meaningful and the text is correctly and clearly constructed. But there were a
number of issues that lessened my enthusiasm for this work:
1. It is difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from this study because the data
was retrospectively gathered and the number of patients was even less than 50. 
2. The ratio between the second and third stages of hemorrhoidal disease within
the groups is not reflected
3. The data in the text of the manuscript differs: the reference to table two does
not correspond to the interpretation in the section "efficiency, complications and
follow-up"
4. It is necessary to decipher the phrase "postoperative pain compared to the pre-
surgical situation" in the section "efficiency, complications and follow-up".
What exactly does this mean? How postoperative pain syndrome and the clinical
situation before surgery are related to each other?
5. The Abbreviations section with is missing
6. In Table 2 «Change in French bleeding severity scores» thare are no
differences between "before" and "after" score
Due to the above, I inform you that your manuscript need minor revisions
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (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 Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at 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 Publons, 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. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons 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 Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
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.
I declare that I have no competing interests
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 publish my name with my
report.
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?
Yes
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?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes