Review for 10.1186/s12876-019-1154-2 (2020)

Reviewer’s report
Title: The challenging diagnosis and treatment of duodenal diverticulum perforation. A report of two
cases.
Version: 2 Date: 16 Dec 2019
Reviewer: Deeksha Kapoor
Reviewer's report:
I would like to appreciate the authors for incorporating the suggestions as raised in the previous review.
The addition of the last paragraph, makes for a more comprehensive read and adds clarity to the article.
There are a few minor suggestions as follows:
1. Spelling error - Procalcitonin - in line 53/54 
2. In case 2, why a follow up MR was done on day 19, when already a CT had been done on day 18 is
still unclear. It seems like an unnecessary radiological investigation. 
3. The word 'confined', should be replaced by "contained'. Use of the phrase - a contained duodenal
diverticular perforation/leak, conveys more information and clarity. 
4. Since a new classification system has not been suggested by the authors, the words in 'conclusion'
segment of the abstract can be modified. 
Suggestion - Conclusion can be written as follows - 
" Both surgical and conservative treatments are viable options for a perforated duodenal
diverticulum in selected patients. Patients with a contained duodenal diverticular perforation can be
managed  conservatively  at  the  outset.  Possibly,  classification  system  for  duodenal  diverticulum
perforation, may help clinicians in making essential therapeutic decisions."
Wishing the authors luck in their future endeavors.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
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 don't have any competing interests
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 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 agree to the open peer review policy of the journal