Reviewer's report
Title:Life-threatening hypersplenism due to idiopathic portal hypertension in
early childhood: Case report and review of the literature
Version: 3Date:7 June 2010
Reviewer: Henry Rice
Reviewer's report:
The authors have resubmitted a revised version of a case report entitled
"Life-threatening hypersplenism in early childhood: Case report and review of the
literature." In its present form, there are still far too many shortcomings with this
paper that limit my enthusiasm for publication of this report.
Specifically:
1) The underlying concept of this paper is that idiopathic portal hypertension is
the cause of the underlying disease, rather than hypersplenism itself from other
causes. In the absence of clear documentation of elevated portal pressures, this
presumption remains still unclear, and therefore the overall concept of this report
remains doubtful in my mind.
2) There are still far too many grammatical errors, despite being a revised
submission. Several are highlighted below, but the abundance of them raises
ongoing concerns.
Abstract
1) The concept of "uncontrolled splenic hyperperfusion...with subsequent
hypersplenism" is not proven. As this case may simply represent hypersplenism,
this should be qualified.
2) Again, hyperperfusion is not clearly demonstrated, therefore, the choice of
therapies should be directed toward hypersplenism, not hyerperfusion.
Background
1) Poorly worded and structured. Should be several paragraphs, not just one.
Phrases such as "amongst others" should be edited. Similarly, the word
"etiopathogenesis" is new to me, and not sure what it means. A careful review by
a native English speaking editor would be mandatory prior to reconsider for
publication.
2) The findings of lack of overy hepatic malfunction does not, to my mind, have
anything to do with congenital causes of hypersplenism as opposed to acquired
causes.
Case Presentation
1) Pathogenic findings is not proper heading.
2) Again, conclusions about portal hypertension are not proven, and therefore
should be qualified.
3) Decision to not measure portal pressures sounds resonable, but it is not true
that this child was "critically ill."
4) Page 6, the phrase "antibiotic-resistant septic temperatures" is unclear.
Bacteremia? Fevers? Antibiotic-resistant organisms? To be published in an
English journal, phrases such as this need to be clarified.
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:
No competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Life-threatening hypersplenism due to idiopathic portal hypertension in
early childhood: Case report and review of the literature
Version: 3Date:7 June 2010
Reviewer: Henry Rice
Reviewer's report:
The authors have resubmitted a revised version of a case report entitled
"Life-threatening hypersplenism in early childhood: Case report and review of the
literature." In its present form, there are still far too many shortcomings with this
paper that limit my enthusiasm for publication of this report.
Specifically:
1) The underlying concept of this paper is that idiopathic portal hypertension is
the cause of the underlying disease, rather than hypersplenism itself from other
causes. In the absence of clear documentation of elevated portal pressures, this
presumption remains still unclear, and therefore the overall concept of this report
remains doubtful in my mind.
2) There are still far too many grammatical errors, despite being a revised
submission. Several are highlighted below, but the abundance of them raises
ongoing concerns.
Abstract
1) The concept of "uncontrolled splenic hyperperfusion...with subsequent
hypersplenism" is not proven. As this case may simply represent hypersplenism,
this should be qualified.
2) Again, hyperperfusion is not clearly demonstrated, therefore, the choice of
therapies should be directed toward hypersplenism, not hyerperfusion.
Background
1) Poorly worded and structured. Should be several paragraphs, not just one.
Phrases such as "amongst others" should be edited. Similarly, the word
"etiopathogenesis" is new to me, and not sure what it means. A careful review by
a native English speaking editor would be mandatory prior to reconsider for
publication.
2) The findings of lack of overy hepatic malfunction does not, to my mind, have
anything to do with congenital causes of hypersplenism as opposed to acquired
causes.
Case Presentation
1) Pathogenic findings is not proper heading.
2) Again, conclusions about portal hypertension are not proven, and therefore
should be qualified.
3) Decision to not measure portal pressures sounds resonable, but it is not true
that this child was "critically ill."
4) Page 6, the phrase "antibiotic-resistant septic temperatures" is unclear.
Bacteremia? Fevers? Antibiotic-resistant organisms? To be published in an
English journal, phrases such as this need to be clarified.
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:
No competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Life-threatening hypersplenism due to idiopathic portal hypertension in
early childhood: Case report and review of the literature
Version: 3Date:7 June 2010
Reviewer: Henry Rice
Reviewer's report:
The authors have resubmitted a revised version of a case report entitled
"Life-threatening hypersplenism in early childhood: Case report and review of the
literature." In its present form, there are still far too many shortcomings with this
paper that limit my enthusiasm for publication of this report.
Specifically:
1) The underlying concept of this paper is that idiopathic portal hypertension is
the cause of the underlying disease, rather than hypersplenism itself from other
causes. In the absence of clear documentation of elevated portal pressures, this
presumption remains still unclear, and therefore the overall concept of this report
remains doubtful in my mind.
2) There are still far too many grammatical errors, despite being a revised
submission. Several are highlighted below, but the abundance of them raises
ongoing concerns.
Abstract
1) The concept of "uncontrolled splenic hyperperfusion...with subsequent
hypersplenism" is not proven. As this case may simply represent hypersplenism,
this should be qualified.
2) Again, hyperperfusion is not clearly demonstrated, therefore, the choice of
therapies should be directed toward hypersplenism, not hyerperfusion.
Background
1) Poorly worded and structured. Should be several paragraphs, not just one.
Phrases such as "amongst others" should be edited. Similarly, the word
"etiopathogenesis" is new to me, and not sure what it means. A careful review by
a native English speaking editor would be mandatory prior to reconsider for
publication.
2) The findings of lack of overy hepatic malfunction does not, to my mind, have
anything to do with congenital causes of hypersplenism as opposed to acquired
causes.
Case Presentation
1) Pathogenic findings is not proper heading.
2) Again, conclusions about portal hypertension are not proven, and therefore
should be qualified.
3) Decision to not measure portal pressures sounds resonable, but it is not true
that this child was "critically ill."
4) Page 6, the phrase "antibiotic-resistant septic temperatures" is unclear.
Bacteremia? Fevers? Antibiotic-resistant organisms? To be published in an
English journal, phrases such as this need to be clarified.
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:
No competing interests
assistant