Review for 10.1186/s12876-019-0974-4 (2019)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: A literature review and case report of severe and refractory post -colectomy  enteritis  
 
Version: 0 Date: 26 Nov 2018  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research 
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?  
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
DESIGN - Is the current  approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow 
confidence in the results?  
No - there are minor issues  
 
Statistics - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
N/A - there are no statistics in this study  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
No - there are minor issues  
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically 
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Probably - with minor revisions  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: The aut hors have written a clear case report which is comprehensible 
and provides information on a disease of interest.  
 
The manuscript would benefit from the authors clarifying their methods and specifying relevant 
limitations.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
1. The aut hors have reviewed the literature, but the paper would benefit from adding more detail 
on the search strategy used, so that other researchers could replicate the search. For example, 
what time period for publication was considered? Which languages were sea rched? What was 
the date of the search? Were there any exclusion criteria?  
2. The authors have proposed a diagnostic algorithm and treatment strategy based on a very 
small number of case reports. It would be valuable for readers if the authors could expand  in the 
discussion on how the evidence they have supports this algorithm, and what experiments would 
be able to provide evidence to support its use (RCTs, observational studies etc.).  
3. The authors should add descriptive captions or titles to each figure,  to clarify what each panel 
shows and make it more comprehensible to readers.  
4. The current way the timeline of the case is presented was confusing to this reader. Please 
consider labelling the colour of the boxes and making the grey timeline linear.  
ADDI TIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
In general the English standard is good, but I suggest authors review the paper with a native 
English speaker as there are a number of spelling or typographical errors that cause confusion.  
 
Note: This reviewer report can be downloaded - see attached pdf file.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments  to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
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 i n your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publi cation of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 curr ently 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 compet ing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests a re not utilized for t hese reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creat ive Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium f or completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer  
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named rep ort 
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 understa nd that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comment 
to the editor s, which will not be published.   
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal