Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01449-y (2020)

Reviewer’ s report
Title: Protruded duodenal tumor arising from Santorini’ s duct of the pancreas: a rare case of
intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm mimicking a duodenal polypoid tumor.
Version: 0Date: 23 Jul 2020
Reviewer's report:
Komatsubara and co-workers presented an interesting case of an IPMN originating from the
Santorini´s duct and mimicking a duodenal polypoid adenoma.The case-report is worth publishing, but some minor modifications should be considered:
1.Write "rare case" and not "extremely rare case" (whole text)
2.Abstract: endoscopic ultrasound not "Endoscopic ultrasound"3.The patient underwent subtotal stomach-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy subtotal stomach-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy. Do you mean "pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenect-omy"? This term should be preferred.4.Background: "…increasing the detection of pancreatic cysts due to the improvement of imagingstudies" better: "increasing the detection of pancreatic cysts due to the improvement and increaseof the number of imaging studies".5.Background: "mimicking a duodenal polypoid tumor".6.It is quite unusual that imaging studies are performed in a 71 years-old patient with a newlydiagnosed diabetes mellitus. Is this common practice in Japan?7.Gallstones not "gall stones".
8."biopsy showed that this tumor was adenoma or more": The authors should be more specific:
low-grade/high-grade dysplasia… Wording.
9.DUPAN-2 testing: the role of Dupan-2 testing should be very briefly mentioned (this test is notfrequently performed in all countries).10."This tumor has intermediate level nuclear atypia": the WHO classification should be used.11. Wording: "seen at peri minor ampullary region".12.Paris endoscopic classification: IIb should be added.13.Instead of "this tumor was IPMC" write "malignant IPMN".14.Wording: "tumors have yet to be vailed because".15. Findings: "Findings at esophagogastroduodenoscopy" instead of "Findings of gastroduodenalendoscopy"16. Figure 2: Radial EUS showed…(Type of EUS should be specified).17.Wording "tumor fulfilled within SD and its branches…".18.Table 1: Summary of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm. Better: " Summary of cases ofintraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms"19.Table 1. stomach-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy? Pylours-p. PD?
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 upon publication of the manuscript. If you have already registeredat Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review and update your profile as per yoursettings and their policy. If you are not registered with Publons, you will receive an email fromthem asking you to register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your newprofile 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 itswebservice 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
YesDeclaration 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 thismanuscript, 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 manu-script is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the publishedreport 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 wheneverprompted. 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?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?YesIs the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?YesIs the presentation of the work clear?YesAre the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free from apparent
manipulation?
Yes