Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02659-w (2023)

Title: FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH DELAYED REPORTING FOR SURGICAL
CARE AMONG PATIENTS WITH SURGICAL ACUTE ABDOMEN ATTENDED AT
MUHIMBILI NATIONAL HOSPITAL – TANZANIA.
Version: 2 Date: 20 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Karpal Singh Sohal
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer of Manuscript titled: Factors that contribute to the Late Presentation of Surgical Acute
Abdomen of the patients attending Muhimbili National Hospital – Tanzania
General Comments
This manuscript was meant to report on the factors that are associated with delay in reporting for
surgical care among patients with acute abdomen attended at the Muhimbili National Hospital.
In its present form the manuscript is not fit to be considered for publication and it requires
considerable improvements in the write-up.
Section-wise comments
The Title:
i) The length is Okay.
ii) Grammatical errors. A surgical abdomen can not present late, rather patient suffering from
surgical abdomen presents late
Recommendation: Please rephrase the title.
Abstract:
i) The background does not reflect the title and the aim. It is very short and just a crude definition
of a surgical abdomen.
ii) The aim of the article has not been stated.
iii) Results: described well, but very bulky.
iv) Conclusion: does answer the objective (which has not been stated, but based on the title).
v) Significant grammatical errors were noted.
Recommendation: Please correct the background, and summarise the information. Improve the
English used.
Keywords:
i) The numbers of Keywords are acceptable.
ii) Some keywords are not appropriate.
Recommendation: add new keywords.
Introduction:
i) The introduction does not describe the area of interest clearly. It is confusing and does not
directly recline the objective of the study. The authors are inclined into defining and describing
the acute abdomen mainly, with a minimum description of the factors that contribute to delay
in seeking medical care for surgical acute abdomen.
ii) What is the rationale for carrying out this study?
iii) The objectives have to be written clearly.
iv) Significant grammatical errors were noted.
v) The citation of references used is made accordingly.
vi) The knowledge gap that the authors are trying to address is not apparent.
vii) The flow of information is poor.
Recommendation: Please restructure the introduction
Material and method:
i) What was the duration of this study?
ii) The sampling technique used has not been described.
iii) Inclusion and exclusion criteria have been described.
iv) How did the authors group various factors?
v) The Fishers test and Chi-square test are not the same.
vi) The authors carried out no regression analysis.
vii) How data handling was done is acceptable.
viii) What were the criteria used to define acute abdomen in this study?
ix) The Statement of ethical clearance has been given.
x) Significant grammatical errors were noted.
Recommendation: The methodology requires some modification
Results:
i) The results section is very bulky.
ii) There might be a better way of summarising and putting the results.
iii) What was the cause of the acute abdomen? The diagnosis might have an impact in causing
delay?
iv) Significant grammatical errors
Recommendation: find a better way of writing the results, and 9 tables are too many, find a way
of summarising the data to come out with a tangible and meaningful explanation.
Discussion:
i) The authors are discussing the results.
ii) The discussion has an ok flow of information.
iii) The authors have not disclosed the importance of the research findings to the community
and for the practice in brief.
iv) Significant grammatical errors.
Recommendation: improve the discussion.
Conclusion:
i) The authors have summarized the main points of the research clearly
Recommendation: none
References and citations:
i) References are written as per journals guidelines.
ii) The number of references is acceptable.
Recommendation: None
Structure and length:
i) It is a moderately lengthy paper.
ii) The article is not well organized nor balanced.
iii) It has some relevant information.
Recommendation: None
Tables:
i) A total of 9 tables is too much.
Recommendation try to find a way of combining information and come up with only the
necessary tables.
English:
i) The English used in the article is not acceptable.
ii) There are significant grammatical mistakes, that hinder the reader to understand the
information being presented.
Recommendation: Please improve the English used in the manuscript.
Logic:
i) The article has not been written clearly
ii) There is a violation of grammar that hinder one to grab information easily.
Recommendation: English used in the manuscript requires significant improvement.