Write a comment

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

Authors mentioned: Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the eight-chop technique in patients with PEX syndrome who underwent cataract surgery. We examined intraoperative parameters, changes in corneal endothelial cells and IOP, as well as intraoperative complications Furthermore, we will verify the effectiveness of the eight-chop technique in patients with PEX syndrome, who are highly susceptible to corneal endothelial cell vulnerability and intraoperative complications. Additionally, we conducted an extensive literature search to examine the superiority of the eight-chop technique. We focused particularly on intraoperative parameters and postoperative corneal endothelial cell density loss. Our research on the eight-chop technique for patients with PEX syndrome aims to promote the development of personalized treatment strategies and ultimately contribute to cataract surgery.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

In Section 2.7. Data Collection and Statistical Analysis Patients were closely monitored on postoperative days 1 and 2 and weeks 1, 3, 7, and 19. Postoperative outcome assessments including BCVA, IOP, CCT, CV, PHC, and CECD were conducted at 7 and 19 weeks postoperatively. Statistical analyses were performed using the Mann–Whitney U test to compare the results obtained from the two groups. The pre- and postoperative BCVA, IOP, CV, PHC, CCT, and CECD values were compared using a paired t-test. The chi-square test was used to determine whether sex-related differences were observed between the PEX and control groups. The sample size was determined using G-Power software (version 3.1.9.7) [26] to ensure that the study had sufficient statistical power to detect significant differences in the results. The parameters for the calculation were based on the data in our paper [18]. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. However, the normality of data was not tested (at least not mentioned in the manuscript, and the normality test applied was also not provided) before the decision on the use of parametric or non-parametric tests.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Highly supported

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Somewhat appropriate and clear

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Very clearly

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Somewhat likely

Research on the eight-chop technique for cataracts with PEX will establish personalized treatment strategies and improve cataract management and treatment.

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, it’s of high quality

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, as it is

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.