Evaluation of Recent Surgical Updates Regarding Diagnosis and Management of Diverticulitis

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for

researchers?

Comments: Yes, the topic is relevant to the journal area of interest.

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

Comments: The abstract includes essential components: the background on diverticulosis and diverticulitis, the objective focusing on surgical intervention, methodology using the PubMed database for article selection, and a conclusion emphasizing the avoidance of colonoscopy in acute, uncomplicated cases and highlighting novel therapies.

The keywords are appropriate, covering the main topics of the paper: Diverticulitis, diverticulosis, colonoscopy, colonic cancer, systematic-review.

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

Comments: The goal of addressing the update on surgical interventions for diverticulitis is explicitly stated in the introduction. The formulation is clear, providing a historical context and the rationale for focusing on this disease due to its rising incidence and the burden it poses on healthcare systems.

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

Comments: The structure is coherent and aligned with the goal of the paper. It follows a logical flow from an introduction to the disease's history and prevalence, methodology for article selection, a detailed discussion on diverticulosis and diverticulitis, including pathophysiology, diagnosis, management strategies, and a conclusion summarizing the findings.

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

Comments: The discussion and conclusion sections are directly related to the results presented in the paper. They provide a comprehensive overview of the disease, current management strategies, and potential future directions. The coherence between these sections and the rest of the paper is maintained throughout.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

Comments: The author has utilized relevant literature effectively, with references supporting the discussion on the disease's pathophysiology, clinical management, and the role of surgery in treatment. The references range from historical perspectives to recent studies, indicating a thorough literature review.

Length

Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

Comments: The length of the paper seems adequate given the significance of the topic. It covers the necessary background, current understanding, and future directions without being overly verbose. Shortening the paper might omit valuable information critical to understanding the complexities of diverticulitis management.

Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: The paper makes use of legends and notations appropriately. For example, the Hinchey classification is provided in a table format, making it easier for readers to understand the grading system used to describe the severity of complicated diverticulitis.

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: The writing style is clear and understandable. It presents complex medical information in a manner that is accessible to readers with a background in the field, without oversimplifying the complexities involved in the diagnosis and management of diverticulitis.

Further comments on the paper

Comments:

The paper provides a comprehensive overview of diverticulitis, emphasizing surgical management while also acknowledging conservative treatments and the role of diagnostics. Future research directions, particularly regarding novel therapies, could be further elaborated to highlight areas of potential advancement in the field. Additionally, considering the evolving understanding of diverticulitis, continuous updates and reviews of the literature will be essential to keep pace with advancements in diagnosis and treatment.

Reviewer 1: The paper presents a comprehensive overview of diverticulitis management, with a strong focus on surgical interventions. The methodology and literature review are thorough, offering a solid foundation for the conclusions drawn. However, the discussion on novel therapies feels somewhat underdeveloped. Future research directions could benefit from a more detailed exploration. Additionally, the paper could improve by incorporating more recent studies on the conservative management and its outcomes compared to surgical interventions.

Reviewer 2: This article efficiently outlines the current surgical practices for diverticulitis, supported by a robust literature review. It successfully identifies the importance of understanding diverticulitis's evolving management. Yet, it lacks a critical discussion on the limitations of current surgical methods and potential complications. Expanding the discussion to include these aspects could provide a more balanced view. Furthermore, incorporating patient-centered outcomes in the evaluation of treatment efficacy could enhance the relevance of the research findings to clinical practice.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - This manuscript is recommended for further publication

If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team