Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Neutropenic enterocolitis-induced sepsis and disseminated intravascular coagulation after
chemotherapy: A case report
Version: 
1 
Date: 
21 Jul 2020
Reviewer's report:
Totally the present article is well-established and the subject is interesting, but some major revision should
be considered.
- 
More suitable title should be selected for the article. Title should decrease to 10-12 words.
- The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions.
An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone.
- It is suggested to present the structure of the article at the end of the introduction.
- The necessity and innovation of the article should be presented to the introduction.
- A flowchart should be added to the article to show the research methodology.
- The major defect of this study is the debate or Argument is not clear stated in the introduction session.
Hence, the contribution is weak in this manuscript. I would suggest the author to enhance your theoretical
discussion and arrives your debate or argument.
- Sections and sub-sections should be numbered in order.
- Please avoid reference overkill/run-on, i.e. do not use more than 3 references per sentence.
- Following, you will find some new related references which should be added to literature review:
Baran et al. Body Fat Mass is Better Indicator than Indirect Measurement Methods in Obese Children for
Fatty Liver and Metabolic Syndrome;
Kosvyra et al. Developing an Integrated Genomic Profile for Cancer Patients with the Use of NGS Data;
Osipov et al. PET-CT and Occupational Exposure in Oncological Patients;
Zare, H. Effects of Salvia Officinalis Extract on the Breast Cancer Cell Line.
- Much more explanations and interpretations must be added for the results, which are not enough.
- It is suggested to compare the results of the present research with some similar studies which is done
before.
- Please make sure your conclusions' section underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or
the applicability of your findings/results, as indicated previously. Please revise your conclusion part into
more details. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, limitations, underscore the scientific
value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this session.
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
No
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 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)