Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: 3-dimensional versus conventional laparoscopy for benign hyst erectomy: protocol for a  
randomized clinical trial  
 
Version: 1 Date: 12 Jan 2017  
 
Reviewer: JI Einarsson  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
There are actually at least two RCT comparing robotic vs laparoscopic hysterectomy  
 
 
I'm not sure the exclusion criteria are well thought through. The two that are mentioned are not 
necessarily exclusion criteria at other institutions, which limits external validity. Should inability 
to tolerate Trendelenburg be a contraindication. There are  probably several others  
 
 
Will tissue extraction be contained or not? Containment may add time and this should be 
uniform between both groups.  
 
 
It seems pretty likely that the study will not find a difference. What is the hypothesis that one of 
these is bett er than the other? Why pick pain and quality of life as primary outcome measure? 
Operative time seems more appropriate (3D may facilitate the procedure).  
 
 
There is nothing really novel in the study design.  
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
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 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:  
 
Acceptable  
 
 
 
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 f rom 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 ap plied 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  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report t o the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for 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 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 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