Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Sclerosing mesenteritis and mesenteric panniculitis - clinical experience and radiological 
features  
 
Version: 0 Date: 08 Apr 2017  
 
Reviewer: Cesar e Cremon  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This was a retrospective study reviewing the clinical cours e and radiological findings of all 
patients identified as affecting by sclerosing mesenteritis (SM) and mesenteric panniculitis (MP) 
from two regions in Sweden. The authors identified 27 patients with MP fulfilling radiological 
criteria and 4 patients, ide ntified as SM, with histological diagnosis but without radiological 
criteria. These two subgroups were presented separately due to different outcome. Interestingly, 
patients with SM reported atypical radiology and a more aggressive clinical course. Finally , a 
case report was presented in this study.  
The study is potentially of interest since it assesses many cases of a rare condition. However, due 
to retrospective and descriptive nature of the study, caution is suggested with the interpretation 
of results, otherwise readers may think that there is evi dence based on the study's results of two 
distinct conditions which is not the case. I think that the Authors should clearly state that the 
study is retrospective and descriptive in nature, and that these aspects should be carefully 
considered in the discu ssion.  
In addition, it is unclear the relation between the case report presented in the study with the two 
subgroups reported in the study. Is it a new case assessed prospectively?  
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 con trols?  
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.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistic s 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 year s 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 a ny 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.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I un derstand 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: Sclerosing mesenteritis and mesenteric panniculitis - clinical experience and radiological 
features  
 
Version: 0 Date: 08 Apr 2017  
 
Reviewer: Cesar e Cremon  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This was a retrospective study reviewing the clinical cours e and radiological findings of all 
patients identified as affecting by sclerosing mesenteritis (SM) and mesenteric panniculitis (MP) 
from two regions in Sweden. The authors identified 27 patients with MP fulfilling radiological 
criteria and 4 patients, ide ntified as SM, with histological diagnosis but without radiological 
criteria. These two subgroups were presented separately due to different outcome. Interestingly, 
patients with SM reported atypical radiology and a more aggressive clinical course. Finally , a 
case report was presented in this study.  
The study is potentially of interest since it assesses many cases of a rare condition. However, due 
to retrospective and descriptive nature of the study, caution is suggested with the interpretation 
of results, otherwise readers may think that there is evi dence based on the study's results of two 
distinct conditions which is not the case. I think that the Authors should clearly state that the 
study is retrospective and descriptive in nature, and that these aspects should be carefully 
considered in the discu ssion.  
In addition, it is unclear the relation between the case report presented in the study with the two 
subgroups reported in the study. Is it a new case assessed prospectively?  
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 con trols?  
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.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistic s 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 year s 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 a ny 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.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I un derstand 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: Sclerosing mesenteritis and mesenteric panniculitis - clinical experience and radiological 
features  
 
Version: 0 Date: 08 Apr 2017  
 
Reviewer: Cesar e Cremon  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This was a retrospective study reviewing the clinical cours e and radiological findings of all 
patients identified as affecting by sclerosing mesenteritis (SM) and mesenteric panniculitis (MP) 
from two regions in Sweden. The authors identified 27 patients with MP fulfilling radiological 
criteria and 4 patients, ide ntified as SM, with histological diagnosis but without radiological 
criteria. These two subgroups were presented separately due to different outcome. Interestingly, 
patients with SM reported atypical radiology and a more aggressive clinical course. Finally , a 
case report was presented in this study.  
The study is potentially of interest since it assesses many cases of a rare condition. However, due 
to retrospective and descriptive nature of the study, caution is suggested with the interpretation 
of results, otherwise readers may think that there is evi dence based on the study's results of two 
distinct conditions which is not the case. I think that the Authors should clearly state that the 
study is retrospective and descriptive in nature, and that these aspects should be carefully 
considered in the discu ssion.  
In addition, it is unclear the relation between the case report presented in the study with the two 
subgroups reported in the study. Is it a new case assessed prospectively?  
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 con trols?  
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.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistic s 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 year s 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 a ny 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.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I un derstand 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