Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on May 31st, 2016 and was peer-reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on August 10th, 2016.
  • The first revision was submitted on October 12th, 2016 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on October 27th, 2016.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

The topic of this study has an important impact in patient management.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Please clarify what the source/predictor of failure for primary URS in the unstented population is? Are there any predictors?

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The tables characterizing the study group are marginal, i.e not very thorough.

There are multiple syntax errors that require correction.

The methods are not described in enough detail.

Experimental design

The methodology is not very scientifically rigorous. Detail on nature of the clinical interventions is lacking.

The statistical analysis appears reasonable.

Validity of the findings

The data is somewhat sparse; there are other factors that can influence the results that are not presented or well delineated.

The findings are not new and are consistent with prior literature.

Comments for the author

The authors assess ureteroscopy for renal stone without preoperative ureteral stenting shows good prognosis. Baseline characteristics of patients, stone burden, operation time, stone free rates, and complications were compared between both groups. They conclude that flexible ureteroscopy for management of renal stones without preoperative ureteral stenting is associated with good outcome in short term follow-up.

There are some minor syntax errors which should be corrected.

“The patients in stenting group received preoperative stenting (5~8F) for persistent renal colic, fever, insufficient renal function, or just to dilate the ureter to facilitate subsequent fURS. The patients in non-stenting group had not received stenting before fURS.” The groups are not equal, i.e patients were selectively stented. Moreover, why did they just dilate the ureter with a stent if they thought primary URS was possible (i.e in cases of no infection). From what I can discern from the methodology, this is not a randomized, controlled, trial.

Did any of the patients in study have prior passed stones or stents?

Ureteral perforation should be rare; how did this happen? What was the source of failure for those without stents at time of primary URS (location?)

Other than semirigid URS, was any other ureteral dilation performed, were ureteral access sheaths used.

Why did a patient undergoing URS receive blood transfusion?

The key questions is what is the source/predictor of failure for primary URS in the unstented population? Are there predictors?

Were stones dusted or fragmented/basket? Was it the choice of the surgeon?

How long were the stents indwelling? Does this make a difference?

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.