Reviewer's report
Title:Surgical margins in conization by Large Loop (LLETZ) and Straight Wire
Excision of the Transformation Zone (SWETZ): a randomized study.
Version:3Date:12 September 2014
Reviewer: Smita Asthana
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revision;
Topic is very important and less reported in literature but at the same time the
two treatment modalities comparison is not giving the complete picture as it is
comparing only type 3 TZ. If the author had data on type 1&2 TZ the value would
have been enhanced. Include more references specially rlated to complications
and follow up of LLETZ. It is also not clear that the study was performed by one
surgeon or more and whether they have comparable expertise. The authors may
include a line or two on surgeon’s clinical experience on the procedures. Only a
partial picture of intra-operative complications is given. More details of
complications may be included for example, if there was any burn injury or not.
Post operative and follow up complications such as secondary haemorrhage
,infections , burn ,long term follow up like abortions ,preterm labour etc can be
included as is an important aspect of these type of surgical managements that
can be included in the paper. Conclusion stating both technique showed low
morbidity is incorrect major surgical complications like perforation etc with a
complication rate of 5,6 % is not low or more explanation is needed.
Minor essential revisions:
There are many mistakes in the paper the paper needs to be revised thoroughly
for language and other corrections some of the suggestions enlisted below
1.Introduction - para2 :Please check the ref no2 it is incomplete as the web page
contains information about mortality statistics and not treatment modalities.
2. Introduction para 1 : Please provide website of ref 1 if available. Please double
check with the figure 15.33.
3. Introduction - para 1-line 2 to figure regarding incidence of new cases seems
to be incorrect, please include correct figure.
4. Give full form of abbreviations when they appear in text for the first time.
Brackets should be applied appropriately.
5 Methods- para-7 - line-1 : the term sedation may used rather then narcosis.
6. Results- Para 3- reframe line 5th to 7th. - not clear.
6. Results - para 6 correction needed in language you may replace ‘once only
‘with ‘one out of every’.
Results- para 4th - line 5- risk reduction replace with ARR (absolute risk
reduction).
In discussion section first present your essential key findings then build up the
discussion and do the comparisons.
Discussion- para 3- first line- mentioned other studies without giving the
references.
Discussion: Clearly specify limitations of the study.
Tables give p values up to one decimal place.
Table1 No need to be given in column of total and both % or SD in single column
not relevant
Table 2 You can give median time of surgery
Table 2 first row blood loss Give <20 first then in next row give 20-100 – change
order
Table 3 column % cases and total of cases may be deleted .
Table 4 &5 also total and % column be deleted.
There is no need to give figure (Flow chart) you can incorporate the values in
text.
Discretionary Revisions:
Proper framing of para merge the two /three line para with the other para improve
presentation
In methodology section define all the three types of TZ or at least give some
references.
incorporated the results of type 2 TZ - also define clearly from objective and title.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'