Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01238-7 (2020)

Reviewer’ s report
Title: Juvenile polyposis syndrome might be misdiagnosed as familial adenomatous polyposis: a
case report and literature review
Version: 0Date: 12 Nov 2019
Reviewer: Masami Arai
Reviewer's report:
In this article, the authors showed that Juvenile polyposis syndrome (JPS) is sometimes
misdiagnosed as FAP due to its rarity and complex clinical manifestation. But this discussion iscritically wrong. First of all, juvenile polyposis "syndrome" should be diagnosed by clinicalcomprehensive findings, not by pathological findings. No established endoscopists diagnose thiscase as JPS based on the findings of polyps such as Fig 1B and Fig1C.JPS polyps show variouspathological features including hamartoma. Endoscopic findings of JPS are clearly different fromthose of FAP. Next, if scattered polyps are observed in this case (Fig.4), I think totalproctocolectomy should be avoided in JPS, different from FAP, even if an advanced colorectaladenocarcinoma exists in the colon because remained colorectum could be left by annualendoscopy, if necessary, with polypectomy.Therefore, I am sorry, but this article is not worthpublishing.Minor points1. Scale bars should be inserted in Fig2, 4 and5.2. Pedigree tree should bedescribed according to the standard nomenclature (PMID: 18792771). At least, present age, onsetage of cancers should be shown in pedigree trees.The arrow showing a proband should be drawnfrom the reverse side.3. What does the figure 49 mean under the mutant gene scheme?
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assessDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assessAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
NoAre 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 furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
Not relevant to this manuscript
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Not suitable for publication unless extensively editedDeclaration 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.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 reportincluding 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 CommonsCC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any commentswhich I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commentsto the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal