Endoscopic Removal of A Nasogastric Tube Accidentally Stitched During Bariatric Surgery: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

Review Data

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

Comments: Absolutely, this case report is highly relevant to the field of surgery, specifically bariatric and gastrointestinal surgery.

The topic is contemporary because it deals with the issue in the context of modern surgical techniques, such as laparoscopic and robotic surgery. As these advanced techniques continue to be adopted more widely, the potential for complications such as the one described here may also increase, making it an important area for further study.

Abstract & Keywords

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

Comments: The abstract includes most of the required components.
Keywords are all well-chosen, as they directly relate to the key elements of the report.

Structure

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

Comments: Yes, the paper's structure is coherent and aligns well with the goal of the paper. It follows the typical format of a case report with the following sections: introduction, case report, discussion, and conclusion.

Discussion & Conclusion

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

Comments: Yes, the discussion and conclusion are related to the results presented in the 'Case Report' section and maintain coherence throughout the paper. The authors do an effective job of discussing their results in the context of the existing literature and summarizing their findings.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

Comments: Yes, the author utilizes relevant literature to support the information provided in the case report.

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 current length appears to be adequate. The paper is comprehensive but concise, effectively detailing the incident, methods used for resolution, discussion with literature review, and conclusions.

Attempting to shorten the paper could risk omitting critical details or nuances that contribute to the paper's value. Furthermore, it could compromise the thoroughness of the discussion and the comparative analysis with the literature, which is an essential part of the paper.

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Yes, the writing style of this paper is clear, concise, and easily understandable. The authors effectively communicate complex medical concepts in a way that is accessible to readers with a background in the field. Medical terminology is used appropriately and accurately, adding to the precision and clarity of the paper.

Further comments on the paper

Comments:

The paper is well-written, clear, and presents an interesting case along with a comprehensive review of the literature on similar occurrences. The case report, the methodology employed, the discussion, and the conclusions are all appropriately described and discussed.

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