Leptomeningeal Cyst in the Adult: Case Report and Review of the Literature

Review Data

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

researchers?

A: Excellent

Abstract & Keywords

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

A: Very good

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

A: Very good

Structure

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

A: Very good

Tools and Methods

Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?

A: Good

Discussion & Conclusion

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

A: Very good

Comments:

The present case is described in adequate detail. The Discussion summarizes the relevant literature well, including the current understanding of the pathology. The authors state that the recommended treatment for leptomeningeal cysts is surgery using a combined dura-cranioplasty technique (autologous or alloplastic) to expose and reconstruct the underlying defect. They conclude that although atypical, leptomeningeal cyst in adults can be detected up to more than 10 years after the head injury.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Very good

Author's knowledge

Q: What is the level of author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?

A: Very good

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?

A: Very good

Figures & Tables

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

A: Very good

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Comments: A few minor issues were noted:

·       Some words were misspelled, e.g., “literature” in the title and “background” in the headings.

·       In the 1^st sentence of the Background, “below <1%” must be replaced with “below 1%”.

·       The 1^st and 2^nd sentences of the Case presentation must be joined as “A 70-year-old woman with a history of severe head trauma at age 7 was under study by Neurology in relation to cephalo-paresthesia and probable nummular headache”.

·       In the 4^th paragraph of the Discussion, it looks like a word is missing after “leptomeningeal” and must be checked by the author.

·       In the 2^nd sentence of the 5^th paragraph of the Discussion, “in time greater than 10 years” must be replaced with “after 10 years”.

·       In the last sentence of the 9^th paragraph of the Discussion, “clearly” must instead be placed after “lesions”.

·       In the 7^th paragraph, “et al” must be followed by “.”.

·       Articles (a, an, and the) and commas were missed in several places.

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This is the report of an exceptionally rare case, that of leptomeningeal cyst in a 70-year-old with a history of severe head trauma at age 7. The scanty literature available on such cases makes the report incredibly significant. Moreover, the literature is well-analyzed and insightful deductions are made, which would provide useful guidance to the medical community while handling similar cases in future.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - Suitable to be published

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

Thanks,
Science Repository Team