Annals of Medicine and Surgery 5 Supplement 1 (2016) S122
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Annals of Medicine and Surgery journal homepage: www.annalsjournal.com
Peer review report
Peer review report 2 on “Effectiveness and versatility of the biological prosthesis permacol™ in pediatric surgery: A large single center experience” 1. Original submission 1.1. Recommendation Reject e invite resubmission. 1.2. Comments to the author This has the potential to be a good publication, however there are a few aspects within the methods and the overall manuscript that need fixing before it can be considered for publication. The most important aspect is the systematic review. This needs to be done in relation to the PRISMA guidelines. Including a PRISMA flow diagram. There also needs to be the inclusion of more than one database. Although the review may be done 'systematically' does not simple make it a 'systematic review'. There should be a results table of all the studies 'included' from the review. Details and the amount of details is up to you but should include demographics of patients and rate of complications (in the included studies) as a minimum. The search criteria should be separated out from the discussion and methods into a table and only the results included in the main manuscript with references to the articles (not the other way around as it is done in the discussion). Also is there anything else that can be gained from this large study other than looking at the complications that occurred as this seems to be a salient point. Are there any other outcomes?
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2016.03.017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2016.03.021 2049-0801
secondary outcomes? that can be included. As mentioned, there is a lot of potential with the manuscript, but I believe it has unfortunately poorly executed. 2. First revision 2.1. Recommendation Major Revision.
2.2. Comments to the author This revision is certainly heading in the right direction. The only problem I have is I don't understand your metaanalysis. You seem to have only done half the work by pooling the results from the studies, but no statistical comparison between groups has been done to complete the meta-analysis, therefore there is no point in including the results as the meta-analysis has not been completed. Fix this, and include graphs/plots in regards to the meta-analysis and this should be almost ready for publication. Adam Cristaudo 47Angor Road, Trinity Park, Australia E-mail address:
[email protected].
