Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Intestinal fistula accompanied by recurrent peritonitis associa ted with peritoneal dialysis: a 
case report  
 
Versi on: 0 Date: 05 Feb 2020  
 
Reviewer: Maite Rivera Gorrín  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors report a case of intestinal perforation  in a young patient on PD for  ix years and 
repeated episodes of peritonitis. They hypothetize that the cause of perforation are the num ber of  
that weren´t adequately treated peritonitis . The authors must improve the text and the 
conclusion, which in my opinion is inconsistent.  
 
I think they must answer the following questions:  
 
Line  29    . It's important to know the origin of ESRD beca use patients with amyloidosis and 
ADPKD for example have a higher incidence of intestinal perforation .  
 
Line 30 "A peritoneal dialysis catheter was placed in August 2012"  
 
Since peritoneal catheter can be a cause of intestinal perforation the side  at the catheter inserted 
must be mentioned. The Fig 1 doesn´t clarify this point.  
 
Line 32" Repeated episodes of dialysis associated peritonitis had not been regularly treated"  
 
I can´t understand what the authors mean  
 
Lines 62 -63 "Perforation may  also occur in association with chronic peritoneal dialysis, with its 
repeated episodes of peritonitis and friction of catheters, which can damage the intestinal wall. "  
 
There is not a reference to support this affirmation.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript : 
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding , or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2.  Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or 
lose financially from the  publication of this manuscript, either now or in the 
future?  
 
3.  Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents  relating to the content 
of the manuscript?  
 
4.  Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization 
that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5.  Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6.  Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, writ e 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available  under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not  be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Intestinal fistula accompanied by recurrent peritonitis associa ted with peritoneal dialysis: a 
case report  
 
Versi on: 0 Date: 05 Feb 2020  
 
Reviewer: Maite Rivera Gorrín  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors report a case of intestinal perforation  in a young patient on PD for  ix years and 
repeated episodes of peritonitis. They hypothetize that the cause of perforation are the num ber of  
that weren´t adequately treated peritonitis . The authors must improve the text and the 
conclusion, which in my opinion is inconsistent.  
 
I think they must answer the following questions:  
 
Line  29    . It's important to know the origin of ESRD beca use patients with amyloidosis and 
ADPKD for example have a higher incidence of intestinal perforation .  
 
Line 30 "A peritoneal dialysis catheter was placed in August 2012"  
 
Since peritoneal catheter can be a cause of intestinal perforation the side  at the catheter inserted 
must be mentioned. The Fig 1 doesn´t clarify this point.  
 
Line 32" Repeated episodes of dialysis associated peritonitis had not been regularly treated"  
 
I can´t understand what the authors mean  
 
Lines 62 -63 "Perforation may  also occur in association with chronic peritoneal dialysis, with its 
repeated episodes of peritonitis and friction of catheters, which can damage the intestinal wall. "  
 
There is not a reference to support this affirmation.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript : 
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding , or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2.  Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or 
lose financially from the  publication of this manuscript, either now or in the 
future?  
 
3.  Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents  relating to the content 
of the manuscript?  
 
4.  Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization 
that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5.  Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6.  Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, writ e 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available  under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not  be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Intestinal fistula accompanied by recurrent peritonitis associa ted with peritoneal dialysis: a 
case report  
 
Versi on: 0 Date: 05 Feb 2020  
 
Reviewer: Maite Rivera Gorrín  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors report a case of intestinal perforation  in a young patient on PD for  ix years and 
repeated episodes of peritonitis. They hypothetize that the cause of perforation are the num ber of  
that weren´t adequately treated peritonitis . The authors must improve the text and the 
conclusion, which in my opinion is inconsistent.  
 
I think they must answer the following questions:  
 
Line  29    . It's important to know the origin of ESRD beca use patients with amyloidosis and 
ADPKD for example have a higher incidence of intestinal perforation .  
 
Line 30 "A peritoneal dialysis catheter was placed in August 2012"  
 
Since peritoneal catheter can be a cause of intestinal perforation the side  at the catheter inserted 
must be mentioned. The Fig 1 doesn´t clarify this point.  
 
Line 32" Repeated episodes of dialysis associated peritonitis had not been regularly treated"  
 
I can´t understand what the authors mean  
 
Lines 62 -63 "Perforation may  also occur in association with chronic peritoneal dialysis, with its 
repeated episodes of peritonitis and friction of catheters, which can damage the intestinal wall. "  
 
There is not a reference to support this affirmation.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript : 
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding , or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2.  Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or 
lose financially from the  publication of this manuscript, either now or in the 
future?  
 
3.  Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents  relating to the content 
of the manuscript?  
 
4.  Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization 
that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5.  Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6.  Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, writ e 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available  under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not  be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant