Reviewer's report
Title:A case report of mesenteric mucinous cystoadenoma with review of the
literature.
Version: 2Date:4 June 2010
Reviewer: adriana handra-luca
Reviewer's report:
This is a report of a cystic lesion unusual by its location in the mesentery.
Major compulsory revisions are required in order to be included as one of the
categories (Instructions for Authors guidelines items 1-7) of case reports
accepted for publication in BMC Gastroenterology.
The authors should highlight the peculiarities of this case with regard to those
already reported in the literature.
Major Compulsory Revisions
The entire manuscript has to be modified in order to focus on the present case, in
order to outline its peculiarities.
The Reference format has to be according to the Instructions for Authors
guidelines.
The writing of the entire manuscript should be checked for medical English.
Minor Essential Revision
The preoperative clinical diagnosis should be added and the morphological
diagnosis should be detailed (presence /absence of ovarian-like stroma ;
immunohistochemistry)
Discretionary Revisions
Please see the comments.
Abstract Section
The Abstract can be unstructured, and can be written on the page following the
Title page.
Cystoadenoma » should be written correctly within the entire manuscript («
cystadenoma »). Paragraph/sentence 3: « Dimensional growth » can be replaced
by « size », and this sentence should be reformulated.
Paragraph/sentence: « Were » should be replaced by « was ».
Paragraph/sentence 6 « Conclusion »:
The peculiarities of this case should be mentioned. The words « story », « sense
» « confirm » are used inadequately.
Key Words Section
« Retropenitoneal » should be written correctly.
Background Section
Paragraph/sentence 5: This paragraph/sentence fits better in a discussion
subsection. The use of a Table already published, should be avoided; the
authors could add 1-2 sentences with the main findings noted in this table.
Case Presentation Section
Paragraph/sentence 2: « didn’t » could be written as « did not ».
The authors should add the preoperative, clinical diagnosis.
In the morphological description part, the authors should add data on the
presence/absence of the ovarian-like mesenchymal stroma, and if special stains
(Alcian blue) or immunohistochemical analysis was performed.
This section should include a discussion focused on the peculiarities of this case
(clinical, pathogenesis) as well as the new and original findings.
Conclusions Section
The authors should highlight the importance and relevance of this case.
The discussion of the pathogenesis should be noted in the Case presentation
section (eventually with a Discussion subheading).
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
AHL
Reviewer's report
Title:A case report of mesenteric mucinous cystoadenoma with review of the
literature.
Version: 2Date:4 June 2010
Reviewer: adriana handra-luca
Reviewer's report:
This is a report of a cystic lesion unusual by its location in the mesentery.
Major compulsory revisions are required in order to be included as one of the
categories (Instructions for Authors guidelines items 1-7) of case reports
accepted for publication in BMC Gastroenterology.
The authors should highlight the peculiarities of this case with regard to those
already reported in the literature.
Major Compulsory Revisions
The entire manuscript has to be modified in order to focus on the present case, in
order to outline its peculiarities.
The Reference format has to be according to the Instructions for Authors
guidelines.
The writing of the entire manuscript should be checked for medical English.
Minor Essential Revision
The preoperative clinical diagnosis should be added and the morphological
diagnosis should be detailed (presence /absence of ovarian-like stroma ;
immunohistochemistry)
Discretionary Revisions
Please see the comments.
Abstract Section
The Abstract can be unstructured, and can be written on the page following the
Title page.
Cystoadenoma » should be written correctly within the entire manuscript («
cystadenoma »). Paragraph/sentence 3: « Dimensional growth » can be replaced
by « size », and this sentence should be reformulated.
Paragraph/sentence: « Were » should be replaced by « was ».
Paragraph/sentence 6 « Conclusion »:
The peculiarities of this case should be mentioned. The words « story », « sense
» « confirm » are used inadequately.
Key Words Section
« Retropenitoneal » should be written correctly.
Background Section
Paragraph/sentence 5: This paragraph/sentence fits better in a discussion
subsection. The use of a Table already published, should be avoided; the
authors could add 1-2 sentences with the main findings noted in this table.
Case Presentation Section
Paragraph/sentence 2: « didn’t » could be written as « did not ».
The authors should add the preoperative, clinical diagnosis.
In the morphological description part, the authors should add data on the
presence/absence of the ovarian-like mesenchymal stroma, and if special stains
(Alcian blue) or immunohistochemical analysis was performed.
This section should include a discussion focused on the peculiarities of this case
(clinical, pathogenesis) as well as the new and original findings.
Conclusions Section
The authors should highlight the importance and relevance of this case.
The discussion of the pathogenesis should be noted in the Case presentation
section (eventually with a Discussion subheading).
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
AHL
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:A case report of mesenteric mucinous cystoadenoma with review of the
literature.
Version: 2Date:4 June 2010
Reviewer: adriana handra-luca
Reviewer's report:
This is a report of a cystic lesion unusual by its location in the mesentery.
Major compulsory revisions are required in order to be included as one of the
categories (Instructions for Authors guidelines items 1-7) of case reports
accepted for publication in BMC Gastroenterology.
The authors should highlight the peculiarities of this case with regard to those
already reported in the literature.
Major Compulsory Revisions
The entire manuscript has to be modified in order to focus on the present case, in
order to outline its peculiarities.
The Reference format has to be according to the Instructions for Authors
guidelines.
The writing of the entire manuscript should be checked for medical English.
Minor Essential Revision
The preoperative clinical diagnosis should be added and the morphological
diagnosis should be detailed (presence /absence of ovarian-like stroma ;
immunohistochemistry)
Discretionary Revisions
Please see the comments.
Abstract Section
The Abstract can be unstructured, and can be written on the page following the
Title page.
Cystoadenoma » should be written correctly within the entire manuscript («
cystadenoma »). Paragraph/sentence 3: « Dimensional growth » can be replaced
by « size », and this sentence should be reformulated.
Paragraph/sentence: « Were » should be replaced by « was ».
Paragraph/sentence 6 « Conclusion »:
The peculiarities of this case should be mentioned. The words « story », « sense
» « confirm » are used inadequately.
Key Words Section
« Retropenitoneal » should be written correctly.
Background Section
Paragraph/sentence 5: This paragraph/sentence fits better in a discussion
subsection. The use of a Table already published, should be avoided; the
authors could add 1-2 sentences with the main findings noted in this table.
Case Presentation Section
Paragraph/sentence 2: « didn’t » could be written as « did not ».
The authors should add the preoperative, clinical diagnosis.
In the morphological description part, the authors should add data on the
presence/absence of the ovarian-like mesenchymal stroma, and if special stains
(Alcian blue) or immunohistochemical analysis was performed.
This section should include a discussion focused on the peculiarities of this case
(clinical, pathogenesis) as well as the new and original findings.
Conclusions Section
The authors should highlight the importance and relevance of this case.
The discussion of the pathogenesis should be noted in the Case presentation
section (eventually with a Discussion subheading).
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
AHL
assistant