1012P- ABSTRACT REVIEWER FORM POST THYROIDECTOMY MANAGEMENT

Reviewer Name :  Omar Kasule
Abstract Title: Post thyroidectomy management
Scoring Criteria			Grades					Total
1.	Significance
		Allocated Score = 20	1	2	3	4	5
	a.	Is the issue addressed relevant to KFMC?					√	0
	b.	Is the issue addressed relevant to KSA?					√
	c.	Is the issue addressed relevant to Region?					√
	d.	Is the issue addressed relevant Globally?					√
	e.	Does the work add to what is already in the published literature?			√			0
			Total					0
2.	Purpose/ Objectives are clearly described
		Allocated Score = 10	1	2	3	4	5
	a.	Was the objective of the study sufficiently described?				√		0
	b.	Was the question clearly defined?				√		0
			Total					0
3.	Methods are appropriate and well described
		Allocated Score = 30	1	2	3
	a.	Was the study design described?		√				0
	b.	Was the study design appropriate to achieve the objective?		√				0
	c.	Were the study subjects adequately described?		√				0
	d.	Was the condition adequately described?			√			0
	e.	Were interventions or exposures (when applicable) well defined?	√					0
	f.	Were outcome measures clearly described?			√			0
	g.	Were outcome measures appropriate?			√			0
	h.	Were statistical analysis procedures used clear and appropriate?		√				0
	i.	Was confounding addressed? (such as adjusting for prognostic factors by multivariate analysis when applicable)	√					0
	j.	Was bias addressed through design or analysis? (such as selection bias, treatment allocation bias, measurement bias, attrition bias, performance bias, detection bias, etc.)	√					0
			Total					0
4.	Results/outcome are clearly and appropriately described
		Allocated Score = 15	1	2	3	4	5
	a.	Was the data presentation satisfactory for all important variables and outcomes?				√		0
	b.	Were appropriate summary data used? (for example, descriptive statistics [Mean, %], effect estimates [RR, OR, HR, etc..] for outcomes, appropriate comparisons)				√		0
	c.	Were confidence intervals or p-values given for the main results (when applicable)?		√				0
			Total					0
5.	Conclusions/implications for results are clearly described, supported by the results, and related to the objective
		Allocated Score = 15	1	2	3	4	5
	a.	Was the conclusion / interpretation justified / warranted by the data?		√				0
	b.	Was the research question answered?			√			0
	c.	Are the conclusions accompanied by appropriate caveats?	√					0
			Total					0
6.	Presentation
		Allocated Score = 15	1	2	3	4	5
	a.	Is it organized / structured /interesting?		√				0
	b.	Is it clearly written?		√				0
	c.	Is the English adequate?		√				0
			Total					0
			Grand Total					0
		I recommemd acceptance with a little editing. The message of the author is inferred from the abstract but the writing is not straighforward regarding the protocol. The author could put in a few more sentences to make it clear what new changes the protocol made in the management. The info is there but just not written in a straighforward manner.