Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Quality of life after laparoscopic hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy
Version: 
0 
Date: 
10 Nov 2020
Reviewer: 
Ibrahim A.
Reviewer's report:
Dear Respectable Editor 
I am grateful to give me the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled (Quality of life after
laparoscopic hysterectomy - Comparison with abdominal hysterectomy). 
The study designed to analyse the postoperative quality of life (QOL) following laparoscopic
hysterectomy (LH) and abdominal hysterectomy (AH) using the Short Form 36-Item Health Survey
questionnaire on postsurgical day 1; weeks 1, 2 and, 4; and month 6.
The study concluded that postoperative QOL in LH cases improved on day 3 and week 1, and LH results in
superior short-time QOL to that of AH.
The authors presented a structured abstract, and informative title 
In the introduction section, authors mentioned why their study was designed (Authors mentioned that
endoscopic surgery has become increasingly popular worldwide over time to respond to the social need
for low invasiveness. Laparoscopic surgery is said to be minimally invasive, compared with abdominal
surgery. However, these are based on perioperative short-term observation, which raises a question about
whether laparoscopy is truly less invasive than open surgery). In the introduction section, please see the
highlighted paragraph in the attached PDF file (I think, this paragraph should be mentioned in the
discussion, to compare the authors finding with other authors finding). 
In the methodology section, I think the authors in the beginning of the methodology should mention the
ethical approval, patients` consent, study design, inclusion, exclusion criteria, and how they specify the
sample size of the participants needed to reach a statistically accepted figure (I think sample size is too
small). How participants assigned to either AH or LH groups. 
In the results section, Student t test to compare quantitative variables (mean +/- SD). Chi-square (X2) to
compare quantitative variables (number and percentage) and I cannot see number and percentage in table 1.
In the discussion section, authors mentioned their findings compared by other authors finding. They also
mentioned the limitations, and future needed retrenches. Authors used relevant references, and clear
conclusion. I think the title of the table should be inserted above the table. Then any calcification or
abbreviation in the table should be mentioned below the table. Example to mention below the table = the
statistical test used to get the P value or any abbreviation in the table. 
The manuscript needs major revision from the authors before acceptance for publication.
Regards 
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this review directly to Publons
(a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, please click on
the “Yes” option below. Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted to Publons after the final
decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have already registered at Publons, they will notify you
of the receipt of this review and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to register in order for them to
be able to recognize your review on your new profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate
derivative metadata for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensitivity
of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as a reviewer by updating your profile
published on its webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate
reviewers. Please find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
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 from 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
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.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access
Creative Commons CC-BY License (
 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is
accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published report have
been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be published.
If you are not happy
for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office before completing the review.
If you
wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to
include your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever prompted. If you
change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please publish my name with my report.
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use of appropriate controls),
and are the conclusions supported by the evidence presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
No
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free from apparent
manipulation?
Yes