- Email: [email protected]
Peer review report 2 on “A rare case of fibrostenotic endobronchial tuberculosis of trachea”
Annals of Medicine and Surgery 4 Supplement 1 (2015) S43
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Annals of Medicine and Surgery journal homepage: www.annalsjournal.com
Peer review report
Peer review report 2 on “A rare case of fibrostenotic endobronchial tuberculosis of trachea” 1. Original submission 1.1. Recommendation Minor revision. 1.2. Comments to the author Dear Authors, Please find my comments below: Abstract: The abstract needs a little restructuring. Please refer to the CARE checklist for the standardised structure. In summary, there is much more information about the history and clinical presentation that are better left in the main body of the report. In fact you are much better of extrapolating your abstract using the structure set in the “Highlights” after the abstract. Keep it concise, keep the headlines but only the relevant positives ( for eg. “The only diagnostically positive test was a bronchoscopy which demonstrated.....” rather than including every single negative test prior. It is important you mention what makes this case report unique and the learning points in the abstract. You also mention in the body that the CT scan demonstrated an abnormality on second
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2015.10.007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2015.12.027 2049-0801
evaluation which is in contrast to the abstract. The abstract only mentions the initial findings which are according to you incorrect. Introduction: no comments to add. Body: Very good presentation of the clinical scenario. Discussion: Good content. A few spelling mistakes in the last four lines (ETTB instead of EBTB, and Military secretions?). I also would like to hear about alternative treatments and the limitations/complications of the therapy this particular patient underwent as well as their success rates. There is no conclusion that wraps it all up. It feels a little open ended. A small summative conclusion with key take away points can help this massively. On the whole, this is a very interesting case report and definitely worth accepting once the above comments are accounted for. Youssuf Saleh, Medical Student Imperial College, School of Medicine, Exhibition Road, South Kensington, London SW72AZ, United Kingdom E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected].
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Annals of Medicine and Surgery journal homepage: www.annalsjournal.com
Peer review report
Peer review report 2 on “A rare case of fibrostenotic endobronchial tuberculosis of trachea” 1. Original submission 1.1. Recommendation Minor revision. 1.2. Comments to the author Dear Authors, Please find my comments below: Abstract: The abstract needs a little restructuring. Please refer to the CARE checklist for the standardised structure. In summary, there is much more information about the history and clinical presentation that are better left in the main body of the report. In fact you are much better of extrapolating your abstract using the structure set in the “Highlights” after the abstract. Keep it concise, keep the headlines but only the relevant positives ( for eg. “The only diagnostically positive test was a bronchoscopy which demonstrated.....” rather than including every single negative test prior. It is important you mention what makes this case report unique and the learning points in the abstract. You also mention in the body that the CT scan demonstrated an abnormality on second
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2015.10.007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2015.12.027 2049-0801
evaluation which is in contrast to the abstract. The abstract only mentions the initial findings which are according to you incorrect. Introduction: no comments to add. Body: Very good presentation of the clinical scenario. Discussion: Good content. A few spelling mistakes in the last four lines (ETTB instead of EBTB, and Military secretions?). I also would like to hear about alternative treatments and the limitations/complications of the therapy this particular patient underwent as well as their success rates. There is no conclusion that wraps it all up. It feels a little open ended. A small summative conclusion with key take away points can help this massively. On the whole, this is a very interesting case report and definitely worth accepting once the above comments are accounted for. Youssuf Saleh, Medical Student Imperial College, School of Medicine, Exhibition Road, South Kensington, London SW72AZ, United Kingdom E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected].