Intralobar Pulmonary Sequestration with Anomalous Artery Arising from the Celiac Trunk
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors present a Case Report of "Intralobar Pulmonary Sequestration with Anomalous Artery Arising from the Celiac Trunk". Authors aimed to make physicians aware of this rare anomaly which may be difficult to diagnose because of its oligosymptomatic course prior to first presentation.
Comments.
Introduction:
The first paragraph on page 2 ((""The worldwide incidence of pulmonary sequestration ranges from 1.5% to 6.4% among all congenital diseases of the bronchopulmonary system [2,4,8]. If there is no com- munication with the bronchial system, the disease may remain asymptomatic for a long period of time. The clinical course is characterized by recurrent bacterial infections that always occur in the same region of the lung. If there is a communication between the dys-plastic parenchyma of the sequester and bronchial system, bronchiectasis can develop with corresponding clinical symptoms [1,10,11]. Ultrasonic scanning, angiography, or contrast-enhanced CT scanning of the thorax is used to confirm the diagnosis of pulmo-nary sequestration [2,10–13]."")) --> should be omitted. It can be in parts placed at the discussion section but it’s not the aim of an introduction to discuss e.g. worldwide incidences.
Investigations:
Authors state "We noted an additional artery (proximal diameter of 5 mm) originating from the celiac trunk" --> while correct I suggest to re-word this sentence and the whole paragraph. It reads like "we incidentally found something and now want to publish it" - the sentences should be written with more scientific focus.
Discussion:
The discussion is too long for a case report. E.g. the last paragraph of this section can easily be omitted as it repeats only statements from above.
Learning Points/Take-Home Messages:
In this section I encourage the authors to really present "Learning points" for the audience and not only repeat results of their findings.
Author Response
Response to reviewer 1
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
We thank reviewer 1 for the suggestion and Silvia Rogers, PhD, owner of MediWrite GmbH, Basel, and author of the book: “Mastering Scientific and Medical Writing – a Self Help Guide”, revised English and style of the manuscript.
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? Can be improved.
We shortened and revised the introduction (lines: 34-35, plus deletion of the first paragraph on page 2).
Is the research design appropriate? Can be improved
We revised the Case Presentation (page 2)
Are the conclusions supported by the results? Can be improved
We revised the Learning Points/Take-Home Message Section (line 199-210)
Introduction:
The first paragraph on page 2 (("The worldwide incidence of pulmonary sequestration ranges from 1.5% to 6.4% among all congenital diseases of the bronchopulmonary system [2,4,8]. If there is no communication with the bronchial system, the disease may remain asymptomatic for a long period of time. The clinical course is characterized by recurrent bacterial infections that always occur in the same region of the lung. If there is a communication between the dysplastic parenchyma of the sequester and bronchial system, bronchiectasis can develop with corresponding clinical symptoms [1,10,11]. Ultrasonic scanning, angiography, or contrast-enhanced CT scanning of the thorax is used to confirm the diagnosis of pulmonary sequestration [2,10–13]."")) --> should be omited. It can be in parts placed at the discussion section but its not thee aim of an introduction to discuss e.g. worldwide incidences.
We deleted the first paragraph on page 2.
Investigations:
Auhtors state "We noted an additional artery (proximal diameter of 5 mm) originating from the celiac trunk" --> while correct i suggest to re-word this sentence and the whole paragraph. It reads like "we incidentally found something and now wanna publish it" - the sentences should be written with more scientific focus.
We thank Reviewer 1 for the thoughtful comment and revised the paragraph (lines: 115-118).
Discussion:
The discussion is too long for a case report. E.g. the last paragraph of this section can easily be omited as it repeats only statments from above.
We shortened the discussion and deleted the last paragraph of the discussion section.
Learning Points/Take-Home Messages:
In this section i encourage the authors to really present "Learning ponts" for the audience and not only reapet results of their findings.
We revised the Learning/Take Home Messages section (lines: 199-210).
Reviewer 2 Report
Line 20 incorrect separation: intrap-ulmonary. Change to intra-pulmonary
Figure 1: a black (left lung) and a white arrow (right lung) are displayed. Probably, the white arrow was intended to be placed to the left side, overlying the black arrow.
Line 109-112: If a list of differential diagnosis is desired it should be introduced before the clear description of the diagnosis (or omitted).
Author Response
Response to reviewer 2
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
We thank reviewer 2 for the suggestion and Silvia Rogers, PhD, owner of MediWrite GmbH, Basel, and author of the book: “Mastering Scientific and Medical Writing – a Self Help Guide”, revised English and style of the manuscript.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Line 20 incorrect separation: intrap-ulmonary. Change to intra-pulmonary
We are sorry for the mistake. We corrected the incorrect separation (line 21).
Figure 1: a black (left lung) and a white arrow (right lung) are displayed. Probably, the white arrow was intended to be placed to the left side, overlying the black arrow.
We corrected the position of the white arrow.
Line 109-112: If a list of differential diagnosis is desired it should be introduced before the clear description of the diagnosis (or omitted).
We inserted the list of differential diagnosis before the description of the diagnosis as suggested by Reviewer 2 (lines: 76-83).
