Reviewer’s report
Title:  Small bowel metastasis from pulmonary rhabdomyosarcoma causing intussusception: a case  
report
Version: 1 Date: 27 Feb 2019
Reviewer: Reviewer 2
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
RELEVANCE - Does this case report make a contribution to medical knowledge, have educational  
value, or highlight the need for a change in clinical practice or diagnostic/prognostic approaches? 
Yes, this report contributes to medical knowledge
CASE DESCRIPTION - Are the details of the case sufficiently well described to understand the  
patient's symptoms and course of treatment? 
Yes, the description of the case is sufficient
DIAGNOSIS/INTERPRETATION - Based on the facts presented, are the diagnosis, interpretation, and  
course of treatment medically sound?
Yes, the work described is medically sound
DISCUSSION OF THE CASE - Does the discussion appropriately analyse the importance of the  
findings and their relevance to future understanding of disease processes, diagnosis or treatment? Has  
an adequate literature review pertinent to the case been included?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Could an appropriately REVISED version of this work  
represent a technically sound contribution?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: Good case report that is NOT the first as the authors claim
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
The authors claim that this the first such case. However a meticulous search points to the opposite. I 
would refer the authors to the following links that mandate a rewriting of sections that claim that this is 
the first such a case; 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227588547_Pulmonary_rhabdomyosarcoma_with_isolated_s
mall_bowel_metastasis_A_report_of_a_case_with_immunohistochemical_and_ultrastructural_studies   
, https://www.bing.com/search?q=small%20bowel%20metastatses%20from%20primary%20pulmonary
%20thabdomyosarcoma&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=small%20bowel%20metastatses%20from
%20primary%20pulmonary%20thabdomyosarcoma&sc=0-
63&sk=&cvid=96EEB601808947E8B6E94A169AA2A6CF
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: 
The instruction needs to be extended to address clinicopathological factors of RMS in adults and more 
specifically pulmonary RMS in adults, particularly in non smokers like the case being reported."
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.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an additional  
statistical review?
If  an  additional  statistical  review  is  recommended,  please  specify  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:
Acceptable
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  financially  from  the  publication  of  this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that 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, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below. If  
your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with declared  
or  apparent  competing  interests  are  not  utilized  for  these  reviews.  This  reviewer  has  agreed  to  
publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to  
Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review  within a specified  
timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer recommendation.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my  
report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for 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 included 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:  Small bowel metastasis from pulmonary rhabdomyosarcoma causing intussusception: a case  
report
Version: 1 Date: 27 Feb 2019
Reviewer: Reviewer 2
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
RELEVANCE - Does this case report make a contribution to medical knowledge, have educational  
value, or highlight the need for a change in clinical practice or diagnostic/prognostic approaches? 
Yes, this report contributes to medical knowledge
CASE DESCRIPTION - Are the details of the case sufficiently well described to understand the  
patient's symptoms and course of treatment? 
Yes, the description of the case is sufficient
DIAGNOSIS/INTERPRETATION - Based on the facts presented, are the diagnosis, interpretation, and  
course of treatment medically sound?
Yes, the work described is medically sound
DISCUSSION OF THE CASE - Does the discussion appropriately analyse the importance of the  
findings and their relevance to future understanding of disease processes, diagnosis or treatment? Has  
an adequate literature review pertinent to the case been included?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Could an appropriately REVISED version of this work  
represent a technically sound contribution?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: Good case report that is NOT the first as the authors claim
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
The authors claim that this the first such case. However a meticulous search points to the opposite. I 
would refer the authors to the following links that mandate a rewriting of sections that claim that this is 
the first such a case; 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227588547_Pulmonary_rhabdomyosarcoma_with_isolated_s
mall_bowel_metastasis_A_report_of_a_case_with_immunohistochemical_and_ultrastructural_studies   
, https://www.bing.com/search?q=small%20bowel%20metastatses%20from%20primary%20pulmonary
%20thabdomyosarcoma&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=small%20bowel%20metastatses%20from
%20primary%20pulmonary%20thabdomyosarcoma&sc=0-
63&sk=&cvid=96EEB601808947E8B6E94A169AA2A6CF
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: 
The instruction needs to be extended to address clinicopathological factors of RMS in adults and more 
specifically pulmonary RMS in adults, particularly in non smokers like the case being reported."
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.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an additional  
statistical review?
If  an  additional  statistical  review  is  recommended,  please  specify  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:
Acceptable
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  financially  from  the  publication  of  this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that 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, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below. If  
your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with declared  
or  apparent  competing  interests  are  not  utilized  for  these  reviews.  This  reviewer  has  agreed  to  
publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to  
Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review  within a specified  
timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer recommendation.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my  
report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for 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 included 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:  Small bowel metastasis from pulmonary rhabdomyosarcoma causing intussusception: a case  
report
Version: 1 Date: 27 Feb 2019
Reviewer: Reviewer 2
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
RELEVANCE - Does this case report make a contribution to medical knowledge, have educational  
value, or highlight the need for a change in clinical practice or diagnostic/prognostic approaches? 
Yes, this report contributes to medical knowledge
CASE DESCRIPTION - Are the details of the case sufficiently well described to understand the  
patient's symptoms and course of treatment? 
Yes, the description of the case is sufficient
DIAGNOSIS/INTERPRETATION - Based on the facts presented, are the diagnosis, interpretation, and  
course of treatment medically sound?
Yes, the work described is medically sound
DISCUSSION OF THE CASE - Does the discussion appropriately analyse the importance of the  
findings and their relevance to future understanding of disease processes, diagnosis or treatment? Has  
an adequate literature review pertinent to the case been included?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Could an appropriately REVISED version of this work  
represent a technically sound contribution?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: Good case report that is NOT the first as the authors claim
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
The authors claim that this the first such case. However a meticulous search points to the opposite. I 
would refer the authors to the following links that mandate a rewriting of sections that claim that this is 
the first such a case; 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227588547_Pulmonary_rhabdomyosarcoma_with_isolated_s
mall_bowel_metastasis_A_report_of_a_case_with_immunohistochemical_and_ultrastructural_studies   
, https://www.bing.com/search?q=small%20bowel%20metastatses%20from%20primary%20pulmonary
%20thabdomyosarcoma&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=small%20bowel%20metastatses%20from
%20primary%20pulmonary%20thabdomyosarcoma&sc=0-
63&sk=&cvid=96EEB601808947E8B6E94A169AA2A6CF
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: 
The instruction needs to be extended to address clinicopathological factors of RMS in adults and more 
specifically pulmonary RMS in adults, particularly in non smokers like the case being reported."
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.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an additional  
statistical review?
If  an  additional  statistical  review  is  recommended,  please  specify  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:
Acceptable
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  financially  from  the  publication  of  this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that 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, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below. If  
your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with declared  
or  apparent  competing  interests  are  not  utilized  for  these  reviews.  This  reviewer  has  agreed  to  
publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to  
Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review  within a specified  
timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer recommendation.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my  
report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for 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 included as confidential comments to the editors, which will not  
be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
assistant