Sample reports / surgery
Illustrative sample: surgery manuscript review
This long illustration walks through how reviewer-style comments might look for a retrospective surgical series with complication reporting and follow-up constraints.
Illustrative sample only. This page shows the *kind* of structured feedback Review My Manuscript provides. It is not a real patient case, not a real peer-review decision, and not a substitute for journal peer review or medical advice.
Demonstration scenario
A multicentre retrospective series compares two approaches for a common procedure, reporting complication rates without consecutive patient enrolment documentation and with differential follow-up between groups. The abstract uses comparative language (‘superior’) despite non-randomised allocation.
Structured feedback focal points
A pre-review would likely emphasise consecutive enrolment, clear definitions for complications (e.g., Clavien-Dindo), absolute counts, loss to follow-up, and whether propensity scores or other adjustments are described credibly. It would also flag comparative language that outruns the design.
Depth of commentary
Real outputs include detailed weakness items, prioritised action plans, and statistical audit notes when tables are available. This page remains illustrative; upload your manuscript to receive feedback tied to your actual content.
Call to action
Ready to test your own manuscript? Start the upload path from the site header or landing CTA. Keep journal instructions as the final authority for reporting and scope.