Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Study comparing 3 hour and 24 hour post -operative removal of bladder catheter and 
vaginal  pack following vaginal surgery: A randomised controlled trial  
 
Version: 0 Date: 09 Apr 2016  
 
Reviewer: Magdy R. Ahmed  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
THANKS FOR YOUR ARTICLE . HOWEVER :  
 
Abstract : 1 - Methods : Missing period & place  
 
2- Results : Missing num bers  
 
Conclusion : Too long ; better to concise.    
 
 
 
Methodology: Major drawbacks as:  
 
1- On what basis sample size calculation??? You depend on retrospective data????  
 
 
2- You must assess only one type of surgery . This is a great bias in your study.   SO 
IMPORTANT IN YOUR STUDY  
 
 
3- Inclusion & exclusion missing ( bladder injury & surgeon request to maintain the pack or 
catheter ????   what about that ???)  
4-  
 
5- No detailed e xplanation about steps in your study (  surgical procedure )  
 
 
6- On what basis you choose 3 hours ?????  
 
 
7- Why not you included classical repair ????  I think more common than VH ???  
 
 
8- For how long follow up cases especially UTI ???  
 
 
8- Spinal anesthesia for majority of cases …..  It is common for urinary retention it self 
?????   I think also a bias in the study .  
 
 
9- No drop out cases ???  
 
 
 Results:  
 
1- Table missing to important points ( SD , T test. Range )  
 
 
2- The study variables must be presented in a separate table .  
 
 
Acknowledgement :  
 
I think better to thank your patient , nursing staff ????  
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
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