Reviewer ’s report  
Title: Efficacy and safety outcomes of robotic radical hysterect omy in Chinese older women 
with cervical cancer compared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy  
 
Version: 0 Date: 07 Dec 2017  
 
Reviewer: Arti Sha rma 
 
Reviewer's report:  
The paper is an opportunity to present it as a first paper from China comparing LRH versus 
RRH. But there are several areas which would be controversial for practice in United Kingdom.  
 
I have made comments on the manuscript. It is n ot specified what is included in postoperative 
complications as complications have also been listed as separate entities and there is no 
significant difference in these groups. Also shortened hospital stay is not equivalent to faster 
recovery and this shou ld be clear in the manuscript. It is not clear why patients were  operated up 
to stage 2 b tumours as internationally we would only operate upto stage 1B1/1B2 tumours and 
not beyond. It was also not clear why all patient required additional treatment as pu rpose of 
surgery is to avoid radical chemo/radiotherapy. There should also be mention regarding cost and 
time taken/learning curve of surgeons to do a laparoscopic versus a robotic procedure.  
At best, it can only be said that they are equivalent in safety  and it is feasible to use RRH instead 
of LRH but I dont feel the data presented has shown a compelling reason to switch to RRH or 
that it is better.  
 
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.  
No 
Are you able to assess any statistics in th e 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.  
I am able to assess the statistics  
Quality of wri tten 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 fr om 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 o f 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, 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 to the authors a nd, 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 an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY li cense ( 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 p olicy of the journal