Title: Risk factors for the prognostic effects of patients with pelvic abscesses: a clinical
retrospective study
Version: 5 Date: 08 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
A. Title and Abstract
Title: The title is appropriate and accurately reflects the study's content.
Abstract:
The abstract provides a good overview of the study.
Consider making it more concise by reducing some of the detail in the results section.
For example, "The findings revealed that non-surgical management was associated with smaller
abscess size but longer recovery times. Laparoscopic surgery demonstrated advantages over
open surgery in operative time and blood loss. Key prognostic factors included treatment
modality, duration from onset to admission, pre-admission temperature, CA125 levels, and
maximum mass diameter."
B. Introduction
The introduction provides adequate background information on pelvic abscesses and the
challenges in their management.  
The authors effectively highlight the controversies surrounding treatment strategies and the need
for better prognostic indicators.  
To improve clarity, consider:
A more explicit statement of the study's specific aims and hypotheses.
For example, "This study aims to identify key prognostic factors, including abscess morphology,
inflammatory dynamics, and intervention timing, that influence treatment outcomes in patients
with pelvic abscesses. We hypothesize that..."
C. Methods
The study design (retrospective cohort study) is clearly described and justified.  
The inclusion and exclusion criteria are well-defined.  
The sample size calculation is appropriate.  
The diagnostic criteria are comprehensive.  
The data extraction process is well-described, enhancing the study's rigor.  
The description of treatment modalities is detailed and clear.  
The outcome measures are clearly defined.  
The statistical analysis methods are appropriate.  
Overall, the methods section is a strong point of the manuscript.
D. Results
The results are presented clearly and objectively.  
Tables and figures are appropriate and well-labeled.
The statistical results are reported correctly.
Consider adding:
Effect sizes (e.g., Cohen's d) to indicate the magnitude of the observed differences. This would
add valuable information beyond statistical significance.
E. Discussion
The discussion section is comprehensive and covers all the key findings.  
The authors effectively compare their results with previous research.
The clinical implications of the findings are discussed.  
To improve the discussion:
Consider streamlining some of the paragraphs to improve flow and readability.
Focus more sharply on the most important implications of the study.
F. Limitations
The limitations section is very thorough, which is commendable.  
However, it might benefit from some reorganization for better clarity:
Group the limitations into categories (e.g., study design limitations, data limitations, etc.).
Prioritize the most important limitations and discuss them in more detail.
Consider moving some of the less critical limitations to supplementary material.
Address how these limitations might have influenced the results and how future research could
address them.
G. References
The references appear to be relevant and generally up-to-date.