Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02189-x (2022)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma of the colon: A rare
case report and literature review
Version: 
1 
Date: 
30 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
I was asked to review the revised version of the manuscript entitled
"Undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma of the colon: A rare case
report and literature review". The authors responded partially to the queries of
the reviewers, and major issues are still present. 
1. The authors had the manuscript revised by a professional company. However,
several inaccuracies (of grammar, verbal tenses, 
and expression) are present.
English language is still not adequate for publication.
2. There are several odd expressions. E.g., "myocardial nourishment", whose
meaning is unclear. 
3. In several occasions, there is not a logical flow/temporal connection between
sentences in the discussion. For instance, the authors write "The levels of tumor
markers such as carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in patients with UPS of the
colon are mostly normal, increasing the diagnostic difficulty [26]. The CEA level
was also normal, but the CA125 level was slightly high in this study.
Histopathology is still the gold standard for the UPS diagnosis". In this case, as
in others, the authors connect literature-acquired knowledge with characteristics
of their own case report, and then go back to literature-acquired knowledge in a
unique logical flow, . I believe that this is confusing.
In other cases, the authors report sharp affirmation without supporting references
e.g. "The pleomorphic leiomyosarcoma and pleomorphic rhabdomyosarcoma are
positive for desmin. UPS frequently expresses vimentin, actin, CD68, 
α
1-
antitrypsin, and 
α
1-antichymotrypsin [31]. Therefore, positive vimentin and 
α
1-
antitrypsin can diagnose the UPS".
4. In the abstract the authors refer to "colonoscopy with virtual
chromoendoscopy" without specifying which type of chromoendoscopy. 
5. Possible reasons of the clinical presentation of the patient should be discussed
in the discussion section. 
5. After revision, I believe that other than a language impairment in the delivery
of the message, this manuscript has several methodological issues.
- The just added search strategy does not report the search words, but just
concepts on UPS.
- The search strategy is reported in the discussion section. If this paper is going
to be a "case report + literature review", I would suggest adding the search
strategy in a separate paragraph. 
I appreciate the effort of the authors to improve their manuscript. In addition, I
believe that the case report per se is interesting. However, I do not feel that the
manuscript should be published in BMC Gastroenterology. The major reason
being conceptual and reporting inaccuracies.
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
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
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes