- Email: [email protected]
Peer review report 2 on “Spontaneous biloma due to an intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: An extremely rare case report with long term survival and literature review”
Annals of Medicine and Surgery 13 Supplement 1 (2017) S77
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Annals of Medicine and Surgery journal homepage: www.annalsjournal.com
Peer Review Report
Peer review report 2 on “Spontaneous biloma due to an intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: An extremely rare case report with long term survival and literature review”
Original submission [H2]Recommendation Minor Revision. Comments to the author Overall impression: well written, clear. Good use of pictures included. Title: should include the words 'case report' as per CARE checklist. Instead 'report of an extremely rare case' has been used. Abstract: some spelling mistakes e.g. 'subcaspular bile vessels rupture' should be 'subcapsular bile vessel rupture' or 'rupture of the subcaspular bile vessels'. The abstract mentions 'possibly this is the first tie this has been reported. Introduction: the abbreviation 'R0 resection' has been used without explanation for the naïve reader. The Introduction would benefit of more. When I searched 'biloma' and 'cholangiocarcinoma' on OVID medline and Embase I found one further article that might be
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2017.01.017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2017.02.015 2049-0801
important to include: Rodriguez et al. 2015. Spontaneous rupture of an intrahepatic biliary duct causing a right pleural and retroperitoneal biloma. American Journal of Gastroenterology. Case report: the 'tumour markers' that were negative were not specified. When the ERCP was performed due to the ongoing bile leak the aim is not stated in the 'case report section' - it is only in the discussion where it is reported that authors attempted a stent insertion. The incision used at laparotomy is not specified. The authors do not mention whether the CT was negative for metastatic spread - although this is assumed later as it is stated that the tumour had negative margins at resection. It is unclear how the patient is followed up - repeat CT or physical examination and history or liver function tests? CARE checklist guidelines ask for a table or figure timeline representation of the information included, this has not been performed. The strengths and limitations of the current approach have not been discussed in detail (e.g. the failure of the ERCP stenting). Anonymous reviewer
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Annals of Medicine and Surgery journal homepage: www.annalsjournal.com
Peer Review Report
Peer review report 2 on “Spontaneous biloma due to an intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: An extremely rare case report with long term survival and literature review”
Original submission [H2]Recommendation Minor Revision. Comments to the author Overall impression: well written, clear. Good use of pictures included. Title: should include the words 'case report' as per CARE checklist. Instead 'report of an extremely rare case' has been used. Abstract: some spelling mistakes e.g. 'subcaspular bile vessels rupture' should be 'subcapsular bile vessel rupture' or 'rupture of the subcaspular bile vessels'. The abstract mentions 'possibly this is the first tie this has been reported. Introduction: the abbreviation 'R0 resection' has been used without explanation for the naïve reader. The Introduction would benefit of more. When I searched 'biloma' and 'cholangiocarcinoma' on OVID medline and Embase I found one further article that might be
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2017.01.017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2017.02.015 2049-0801
important to include: Rodriguez et al. 2015. Spontaneous rupture of an intrahepatic biliary duct causing a right pleural and retroperitoneal biloma. American Journal of Gastroenterology. Case report: the 'tumour markers' that were negative were not specified. When the ERCP was performed due to the ongoing bile leak the aim is not stated in the 'case report section' - it is only in the discussion where it is reported that authors attempted a stent insertion. The incision used at laparotomy is not specified. The authors do not mention whether the CT was negative for metastatic spread - although this is assumed later as it is stated that the tumour had negative margins at resection. It is unclear how the patient is followed up - repeat CT or physical examination and history or liver function tests? CARE checklist guidelines ask for a table or figure timeline representation of the information included, this has not been performed. The strengths and limitations of the current approach have not been discussed in detail (e.g. the failure of the ERCP stenting). Anonymous reviewer