Reviewer's report
Title:A case report of mesenteric mucinous cystoadenoma with review of the
literature
Version: 4Date:17 August 2010
Reviewer: adriana handra-luca
Reviewer's report:
This is a report of a cystic lesion with unusual presentation: its mesenteric
location and the associated clinical features.
Major compulsory revisions are required although several changes according to
the previous review have been made.
Major Compulsory Revisions
The Conclusion section has to be brief; differential diagnosis and other
discussion detail should be noted in the Case Report/Discussion section.
The manuscript should be checked for medical English (terms and phrases).
The characteristics of this case should be compared to those of the already
reported case of mesenteric location (age, gender, etc). The authors have to be
more precise in what concerns the reference of the paper reporting this previous
case, since one of the peculiarities is the site of the cyst.
Minor Revisions
Page 2: the point at the end of the sentences has to be added (4th and last
sentence).
Page 3:
2nd sentence: the point at the end of the sentence should be added
Last paragraph: The authors can reformulate and indicate that the ultrasound
and colonoscopy features of the mass were concordant and, suggestive of “an
oval mass ///”. This sentence contains too many informations, it can be split into
several.
Page 4: The abbreviation “TC” has to be written uniformly within the entire
manuscript, and rather as “CT” (see page 6).
The precise pathology diagnosis, and the arguments which favor this diagnosis
(although lack of ovarian-like stroma) should be clearly stated at the end of the
pathology/immunohistochemistry description.
Page 5: After sentence 2, the authors can add that the patient was well after 2
years (information that is noted page 6, end of the Conclusion).
The pathogenesis paragraph should be simplified and shortened. The lack of
ovarian-like stroma should be discussed.
The discussion of differential diagnoses (last sentence on the page) is more
appropriate in the Case presentation/Discussion section.
Page 6: The Conclusion should be brief and avoid mixture with too many already
reported data.
References: the references should be written according to the Instructions for
Authors (no point at the end of the reference), the reference 5 should be checked
for the word “retroperitoneal”.
Page 8: The figure legends would be more comprehensible if organized as
complete sentences (subject, verb).
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:A case report of mesenteric mucinous cystoadenoma with review of the
literature
Version: 4Date:17 August 2010
Reviewer: adriana handra-luca
Reviewer's report:
This is a report of a cystic lesion with unusual presentation: its mesenteric
location and the associated clinical features.
Major compulsory revisions are required although several changes according to
the previous review have been made.
Major Compulsory Revisions
The Conclusion section has to be brief; differential diagnosis and other
discussion detail should be noted in the Case Report/Discussion section.
The manuscript should be checked for medical English (terms and phrases).
The characteristics of this case should be compared to those of the already
reported case of mesenteric location (age, gender, etc). The authors have to be
more precise in what concerns the reference of the paper reporting this previous
case, since one of the peculiarities is the site of the cyst.
Minor Revisions
Page 2: the point at the end of the sentences has to be added (4th and last
sentence).
Page 3:
2nd sentence: the point at the end of the sentence should be added
Last paragraph: The authors can reformulate and indicate that the ultrasound
and colonoscopy features of the mass were concordant and, suggestive of “an
oval mass ///”. This sentence contains too many informations, it can be split into
several.
Page 4: The abbreviation “TC” has to be written uniformly within the entire
manuscript, and rather as “CT” (see page 6).
The precise pathology diagnosis, and the arguments which favor this diagnosis
(although lack of ovarian-like stroma) should be clearly stated at the end of the
pathology/immunohistochemistry description.
Page 5: After sentence 2, the authors can add that the patient was well after 2
years (information that is noted page 6, end of the Conclusion).
The pathogenesis paragraph should be simplified and shortened. The lack of
ovarian-like stroma should be discussed.
The discussion of differential diagnoses (last sentence on the page) is more
appropriate in the Case presentation/Discussion section.
Page 6: The Conclusion should be brief and avoid mixture with too many already
reported data.
References: the references should be written according to the Instructions for
Authors (no point at the end of the reference), the reference 5 should be checked
for the word “retroperitoneal”.
Page 8: The figure legends would be more comprehensible if organized as
complete sentences (subject, verb).
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.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:A case report of mesenteric mucinous cystoadenoma with review of the
literature
Version: 4Date:17 August 2010
Reviewer: adriana handra-luca
Reviewer's report:
This is a report of a cystic lesion with unusual presentation: its mesenteric
location and the associated clinical features.
Major compulsory revisions are required although several changes according to
the previous review have been made.
Major Compulsory Revisions
The Conclusion section has to be brief; differential diagnosis and other
discussion detail should be noted in the Case Report/Discussion section.
The manuscript should be checked for medical English (terms and phrases).
The characteristics of this case should be compared to those of the already
reported case of mesenteric location (age, gender, etc). The authors have to be
more precise in what concerns the reference of the paper reporting this previous
case, since one of the peculiarities is the site of the cyst.
Minor Revisions
Page 2: the point at the end of the sentences has to be added (4th and last
sentence).
Page 3:
2nd sentence: the point at the end of the sentence should be added
Last paragraph: The authors can reformulate and indicate that the ultrasound
and colonoscopy features of the mass were concordant and, suggestive of “an
oval mass ///”. This sentence contains too many informations, it can be split into
several.
Page 4: The abbreviation “TC” has to be written uniformly within the entire
manuscript, and rather as “CT” (see page 6).
The precise pathology diagnosis, and the arguments which favor this diagnosis
(although lack of ovarian-like stroma) should be clearly stated at the end of the
pathology/immunohistochemistry description.
Page 5: After sentence 2, the authors can add that the patient was well after 2
years (information that is noted page 6, end of the Conclusion).
The pathogenesis paragraph should be simplified and shortened. The lack of
ovarian-like stroma should be discussed.
The discussion of differential diagnoses (last sentence on the page) is more
appropriate in the Case presentation/Discussion section.
Page 6: The Conclusion should be brief and avoid mixture with too many already
reported data.
References: the references should be written according to the Instructions for
Authors (no point at the end of the reference), the reference 5 should be checked
for the word “retroperitoneal”.
Page 8: The figure legends would be more comprehensible if organized as
complete sentences (subject, verb).
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.
assistant