Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Long term follow-up of inguinal endometriosis
Version: 
2 
Date: 
03 Nov 2020
Reviewer's report:
Reference Manuscript Number: BMWH-20-00981R2
Title: Individualized managing strategies of inguinal endometriosis: the issues of
general and gynecology
The present study has tried to evaluate the clinical characteristics, management
strategies and follow up of gynecological results for inguinal endometriosis. At
the end of the study, the authors concluded that surgeons should be aware of the
possibility of inguinal endometriosis in fertile women with a lump in the groin
and a concomitant hernia sac with groin endometriosis should be kept in mind.
Inguinal endometriosis is a rare entity and the article is valuable as awareness is
indicated. However, the article was written in disorganized style and contained a
lot of failure in spelling and English language. In material and methods section,
the authors stated that a literature review was performed. However, there were
many articles not mentioned in the present study (stated below) so reviewing
process was not done properly. In my opinion, the present study is better suited
to the case series format than a research article. 
On the other hand, there are a lot of studies/reports about the same subject in the
literature as mentioned below. I think, this paper does not contribute major
significance to the literature.
a) Miranda L, et al. 
Inguinal endometriosis or irreducible hernia? A difficult
preoperative diagnosis. Hernia 2001;5:47-9. 
b) Kim DH, et al. Inguinal endometriosis in a patient without a previous history
of gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2014 Mar;57(2):172-5.
c) Fujikawa H, et al. Inguinal Endometriosis: An Unusual Cause of Groin Pain.
Balkan Med J. 2020 Aug 11;37(5):291-292.
d) Nagama T, et al. Heterotopic Endometriosis in the Inguinal Region: A Case
Report and Literature Review. Eplasty. 2019 Dec 3;19:ic19. eCollection 2019.
e) Fong KNY, et al. Inguinal endometriosis: a differential diagnosis of right
groin swelling in women of reproductive age. BMJ Case Rep. 2019 Aug
26;12(8):e229864.
f) Albutt K, et al. Endometriosis within a left-sided inguinal hernia sac. J Surg
Case Rep. 2014 May 15;2014(5):rju046.
g) Sun ZJ, et al. A rare extrapelvic endometriosis: inguinal endometriosis. J
Reprod Med. 2010 Jan-Feb;55(1-2):62-6.
h) Apostolidis S, et al. Inguinal endometriosis: three cases and literature review.
South Med J. 2009 Feb;102(2):206-7.
i) Arakawa T, et al. Clinical aspects and management of inguinal endometriosis:
A case series of 20 patients. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2019 Oct;45(10):2029-2036.
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?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes