Intestinal Ameboma Involving the Jejunum: First Case Reported in Medical Literature

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for researchers?

Comments: Yes, the topic of the paper is indeed relevant to the surgical field. It presents an unusual case of an intestinal ameboma involving the jejunum, which is a unique manifestation of a relatively common condition, amoebiasis.

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

Comments: Unfortunately the abstract is not present in the manuscript.
Regarding the keywords given ("emergency surgery", "laparoscopy", "ameboma", "intestinal amoebiasis"), these seem appropriate as they highlight the main topics covered in the case report.

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

Comments: Yes, the structure of the paper is coherent and aligns well with the goal of a case report. The paper follows a standard case report structure:

1.     Introduction: This sets up the case and provides some initial context. It could be improved by making the paper's goal more explicit, but the goal is implied reasonably well by the case introduction.

2.     Case Report: The author provides a detailed description of the patient's clinical history, symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, and outcome. This section is clear and thorough.

3.     Discussion: Here, the author discusses the case in the broader context of medical knowledge. This includes differential diagnosis, pathophysiology, and implications for future cases. This section is well-linked to the reported case and explores its significance in-depth.

The author also uses figures and references to support the narrative, which adds to the paper's coherence and value. Thus, overall, the structure of the paper is coherent and in line with its goal of presenting and discussing a unique medical case.

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

Comments: The discussion and conclusion of the paper are coherent and well-aligned with the presented case, emphasizing its significance and implications for medical practice.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

Comments: The literature used is current and directly relevant to the case, allowing the authors to elaborate on the importance and implications of their findings within the broader context of medical knowledge and practice.

Length

Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

Comments: The length of the paper seems appropriate given the significance of the topic. The authors have presented a unique case of an ameboma in the jejunum, which is previously unreported in the medical literature, so the detailed discussion helps to contribute new knowledge to the field.

The authors have used the length of the paper to provide a comprehensive account of the patient's symptoms, diagnostic process, treatment, and post-treatment course, along with a detailed discussion of the literature relevant to the case. All these sections seem necessary for a full understanding of the case and its implications.

There doesn't appear to be any unnecessary or repetitive information that could be removed without losing value. The paper is concise, while providing all necessary information. It's also written in a way that's easy to follow, which contributes to its readability. Overall, I wouldn't recommend shortening the paper.

Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: The figures are clearly referenced in the text, providing visual support for the information discussed.

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: The writing style of the paper is largely clear, precise, and understandable. It adheres to the formal and objective tone typically seen in scientific literature. The language used is appropriate for the intended audience, which would be healthcare professionals, researchers, or students with an understanding of medical and scientific terminology.

The paper is well-structured, following the conventional format of Introduction, Case Report, and Discussion, which helps the reader navigate the text.

Further comments on the paper

Comments:

Overall, the paper presents an interesting and novel case that adds to the body of literature on rare manifestations of intestinal amoebiasis. Here are a few additional observations and suggestions for improvement:

1.     Novelty and Significance: The authors have done a commendable job emphasizing the uniqueness of their case (a jejunal ameboma), which distinguishes their paper in the medical literature. The final paragraph of the discussion does an excellent job of reiterating this point.

2.     Consistency: Some minor consistency issues need attention. For instance, the patient's age is initially stated as "58-years-old" and later as "58 years old". While both are understandable, sticking to one format throughout the text can make the paper look more polished.

3.     Case Report Detail: While the authors provide a detailed account of the patient's case, they could also elaborate more on the post-treatment course. For instance, were there any follow-up visits or tests? How was the patient's recovery, and were there any complications or recurrence?

4.     Proofreading: A careful proofreading could help catch minor errors. For instance, the word "imagine" seems to be used where "image" was likely intended in the figure captions. These small changes can help enhance the readability and professionalism of the paper.

In conclusion, this paper is a valuable contribution to the field, presenting an unusual case of intestinal amoebiasis. With a few adjustments, it could be further strengthened and polished.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - This manuscript is recommended for further publication

If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team