Reviewer’s report
Title: Pneumatosis Cystoides Intestinalis: A case report and literature review
Version: 1 Date: 19 Jul 2019
Reviewer: Cheng-Maw Ho
Reviewer's report:
1. Figure legends are too brief and more details (including observations) should be provided. Was the 
biopsy necessary?
2. The 3rd paragraph in discussion actually is part of the case report. I suggest to incorporate into the 
Report section.
3. What are intestinal mucosal protective agents? Do they have scientific evidence? Was the patient's 
recovery just derived from the discontinuation of acarbose? 
4. Many statements lack references, especially in Discussion section.
 example: 
Many cases can be found in clinical practice in which patients with pneumoperitoneum signs were 
misdiagnosed as having digestive tract perforation.
During complications such as intestinal perforation, intestinal obstruction,... endoscopic treatment 
should be selected first.
Surgery should be considered when endoscopic treatment is invalid.
5. How does endoscopic treatment "treat" intestinal perforation?
6. The predictors of prognosis include.... Do you mean "poor" prognosis? In that case, how to manage 
the patient? 
7. The authors repeated stated that PCI is a rare disease but I would recommend the term "not 
uncommon" as they are easily misdiagnosed and maltreated. The authors are encouraged to comment 
on what characteristics the high risk patients have.
8. The references are not in uniform style.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
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.
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be include
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 declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer’s report
Title: Pneumatosis Cystoides Intestinalis: A case report and literature review
Version: 1 Date: 19 Jul 2019
Reviewer: Cheng-Maw Ho
Reviewer's report:
1. Figure legends are too brief and more details (including observations) should be provided. Was the 
biopsy necessary?
2. The 3rd paragraph in discussion actually is part of the case report. I suggest to incorporate into the 
Report section.
3. What are intestinal mucosal protective agents? Do they have scientific evidence? Was the patient's 
recovery just derived from the discontinuation of acarbose? 
4. Many statements lack references, especially in Discussion section.
 example: 
Many cases can be found in clinical practice in which patients with pneumoperitoneum signs were 
misdiagnosed as having digestive tract perforation.
During complications such as intestinal perforation, intestinal obstruction,... endoscopic treatment 
should be selected first.
Surgery should be considered when endoscopic treatment is invalid.
5. How does endoscopic treatment "treat" intestinal perforation?
6. The predictors of prognosis include.... Do you mean "poor" prognosis? In that case, how to manage 
the patient? 
7. The authors repeated stated that PCI is a rare disease but I would recommend the term "not 
uncommon" as they are easily misdiagnosed and maltreated. The authors are encouraged to comment 
on what characteristics the high risk patients have.
8. The references are not in uniform style.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
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.
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be include
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 declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’s report
Title: Pneumatosis Cystoides Intestinalis: A case report and literature review
Version: 1 Date: 19 Jul 2019
Reviewer: Cheng-Maw Ho
Reviewer's report:
1. Figure legends are too brief and more details (including observations) should be provided. Was the 
biopsy necessary?
2. The 3rd paragraph in discussion actually is part of the case report. I suggest to incorporate into the 
Report section.
3. What are intestinal mucosal protective agents? Do they have scientific evidence? Was the patient's 
recovery just derived from the discontinuation of acarbose? 
4. Many statements lack references, especially in Discussion section.
 example: 
Many cases can be found in clinical practice in which patients with pneumoperitoneum signs were 
misdiagnosed as having digestive tract perforation.
During complications such as intestinal perforation, intestinal obstruction,... endoscopic treatment 
should be selected first.
Surgery should be considered when endoscopic treatment is invalid.
5. How does endoscopic treatment "treat" intestinal perforation?
6. The predictors of prognosis include.... Do you mean "poor" prognosis? In that case, how to manage 
the patient? 
7. The authors repeated stated that PCI is a rare disease but I would recommend the term "not 
uncommon" as they are easily misdiagnosed and maltreated. The authors are encouraged to comment 
on what characteristics the high risk patients have.
8. The references are not in uniform style.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
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.
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be include
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 declare that I have no competing interests
assistant