Review for 10.1186/s12876-019-1142-6 (2019)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Serious postoperative complications induced by medical glue: three case reports  
   
Version: 1 Date: 05 Feb 2019  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
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?  
No - there are minor issues  
 
Statistics - Is the use o f statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
N/A - there are no statistics in this study  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable  
 
OVERALL MANUSC RIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically 
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Maybe - with major revisions  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: Overall Impression  
The topic is good  and potentially important but the writing is unsatisfactory and the best advice I 
can give the authors is to use a scientific editing service because the writing is not satisfactory. I 
do understand the authors difficulty and am sympathetic but they need p rofessional help with 
their writing any reader will bail out after the first paragraph.  
What have the authors done well  
the topic is an interesting one that is not well reported in the recent literature and they have 3 
case reports that support their purp ose of reporting this complication of fibrin glue  
How does it not meet best practice   
This is in essence a series of 3 case reports that support the concept of complications of fibrin 
glue. There really is not best practice involved -this is more of a war ning that if used 
inappropriately , fibrin glue can lead to intraabdominal complications related to non resorption of 
the fibrin glue  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
See below for suggestions to the authors  
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
 Comments to authors  
1 Page 2 line 24 hemofecia is not a word I think  you mean hematochezia  
 
2. what do you mean by "foreign bodies" in the abstract. Were these fibrin concretions? Needs 
explaining  
 
3. the phrase "massive researches " is not appropriate use "a great deal of resear ch has"xxxxxxx  
 
4. The data as in ref 3 is anecdotal and many other references do not support this claim. Delete 
the reference to colorectal anastomoses  
 
5. Page 4 when describing the foreign bodies seen on endoscopy be certain to say that they were 
seen " eroding into the duodenal lumen"  
 
6. Case 1 please describe how fibrin flue was used and where during the laparoscopic colectomy  
 
6. Page 3 line 39 what is Schulze evagination" reword this entire part from line 36 to line 45  
 
7. Page 3 line 53. What do you mean by " three vascular clamps" were these metal instruments  
left in the abdomen after the prior operation? I do not see them in the CT. It appears that you are 
using the phrase "vascular clamps" inappropriately  are these vascular cold?  
 
8. Did patient 3  get operated because of peritonitis ?  
 
9. Page 5 line 31 change enteroscopy to colonoscopy  
 
10. Where was the fibrin glue used in the previous operation and what is an "uplift"?  
 
11. Page 5 line 34 change to colonic lumen  
 
12. How can a CT describe "turbid  surrounding fay space" do mean chronic inflammation or 
phlegmon?  
 
13. Page 5 line 39 did this patient have peritonitis such that you call it colonic perforation. If not 
the a better phrase would be "colonic erosion"  
 
14. Page 6 line 9 what do you  mean by"e ffusion of the small intestine"?do you mean air fluid 
levels?  
 
15. Why was a partial eneyerectony necessary? Did you make an enterotomy during mobilization 
or was the bowel strangulated?  
 
16. Page 10 line 47 change "incarcerated" to "eroding into"  
 
17. My best advice to you is to get help from a scientific editing service - no journal will accept a 
manuscript that has so many problems with English.  I am very sympathetic to you and the 
difficulties writing in a non native language but you really need help. Use a service that is 
scientific not just a native English speaking service. You have a definite message and one that is 
not well appreciated but for it to be publishable you need to be able to describe the problem well. 
Good luck.  
 
Note: This  reviewer report can be downloaded - see attached pdf file.  
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well des cribed?  
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 draw n adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy 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 : 
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
  
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 financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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, writ e '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 t hese reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Common s 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.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along 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 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