Reviewer's report
Title:Bowel necrosis following endovascular revascularization for chronic
mesenteric ischemia: report of a case and review of literatures
Version: 2Date:21 April 2013
Reviewer: Samuel Andreas Käser
Reviewer's report:
Takuro Shirasu et al. present a case of distal embolization with consecutive
bowel necrosis after endovascular revascularization for chronic mesenteric
ischemia. The report is of educational value as it emphasizes this complication in
a good way.
I. Major comments (which the author must respond to before a decision on
publication can be reached)
1. There are several grammatical errors in the manuscript. I propose to find a
native English speaker to improve the manuscript.
2. The authors contributions section is awkward. No research had to be designed
and no data had to be analyzed for this case report. Perhaps only TS, AH and
TM should be mentioned as authors, as obviously only they made essential
contributions to this case report?
II. Minor comments / suggestions (such as missing labels on figures, or the
wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
1. Abstract Background
The statement in the second sentence is neither wrong nor right. Several
possible complications of endovascular revascularization for chronic mesenteric
ischemia have been emphasized in the literature that is cited. I propose to write
explicitly that intestinal necrosis due to distal embolization has not been
emphasized yet.
III. Discretionary Revisions (which are recommendations for improvement but
which the author can choose to ignore)
1. Title
I propose to write: „review of literature“ instead of „review of literatures“.
2. Abstract Case presentation
The last sentence can be omitted, as the information is redundant and it indeed
is a conclusion. Additionally the conjugation of the verb “to be” is wrong.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Bowel necrosis following endovascular revascularization for chronic
mesenteric ischemia: report of a case and review of literatures
Version: 2Date:21 April 2013
Reviewer: Samuel Andreas Käser
Reviewer's report:
Takuro Shirasu et al. present a case of distal embolization with consecutive
bowel necrosis after endovascular revascularization for chronic mesenteric
ischemia. The report is of educational value as it emphasizes this complication in
a good way.
I. Major comments (which the author must respond to before a decision on
publication can be reached)
1. There are several grammatical errors in the manuscript. I propose to find a
native English speaker to improve the manuscript.
2. The authors contributions section is awkward. No research had to be designed
and no data had to be analyzed for this case report. Perhaps only TS, AH and
TM should be mentioned as authors, as obviously only they made essential
contributions to this case report?
II. Minor comments / suggestions (such as missing labels on figures, or the
wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
1. Abstract Background
The statement in the second sentence is neither wrong nor right. Several
possible complications of endovascular revascularization for chronic mesenteric
ischemia have been emphasized in the literature that is cited. I propose to write
explicitly that intestinal necrosis due to distal embolization has not been
emphasized yet.
III. Discretionary Revisions (which are recommendations for improvement but
which the author can choose to ignore)
1. Title
I propose to write: „review of literature“ instead of „review of literatures“.
2. Abstract Case presentation
The last sentence can be omitted, as the information is redundant and it indeed
is a conclusion. Additionally the conjugation of the verb “to be” is wrong.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Bowel necrosis following endovascular revascularization for chronic
mesenteric ischemia: report of a case and review of literatures
Version: 2Date:21 April 2013
Reviewer: Samuel Andreas Käser
Reviewer's report:
Takuro Shirasu et al. present a case of distal embolization with consecutive
bowel necrosis after endovascular revascularization for chronic mesenteric
ischemia. The report is of educational value as it emphasizes this complication in
a good way.
I. Major comments (which the author must respond to before a decision on
publication can be reached)
1. There are several grammatical errors in the manuscript. I propose to find a
native English speaker to improve the manuscript.
2. The authors contributions section is awkward. No research had to be designed
and no data had to be analyzed for this case report. Perhaps only TS, AH and
TM should be mentioned as authors, as obviously only they made essential
contributions to this case report?
II. Minor comments / suggestions (such as missing labels on figures, or the
wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
1. Abstract Background
The statement in the second sentence is neither wrong nor right. Several
possible complications of endovascular revascularization for chronic mesenteric
ischemia have been emphasized in the literature that is cited. I propose to write
explicitly that intestinal necrosis due to distal embolization has not been
emphasized yet.
III. Discretionary Revisions (which are recommendations for improvement but
which the author can choose to ignore)
1. Title
I propose to write: „review of literature“ instead of „review of literatures“.
2. Abstract Case presentation
The last sentence can be omitted, as the information is redundant and it indeed
is a conclusion. Additionally the conjugation of the verb “to be” is wrong.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests
assistant