The Development of Acquired Amegakaryocytic Thrombocytopenia in a Patient with Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura

Review Data

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

Comments: Yes, the topic is relevant to the journal area of interest.

Abstract & Keywords

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

Comments: The abstract seems to include all the required components, including the background information, methods, results, and conclusion of the study. The abstract provides an overview of the case study and its findings.
Regarding the keywords, they appear to be appropriately chosen and relevant to the content of the case study.

Structure

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

Comments: Yes, the paper's structure appears to be coherent and in coherence with the goal of the paper. It follows a standard structure commonly found in medical case reports and scientific articles

Discussion & Conclusion

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

Comments: The discussion appears to be related to the results presented before. The discussion delves into the mechanisms underlying the conversion from idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) to acquired amegakaryocytic thrombocytopenia (AAMT). It explores the potential role of anti-c-MPL antibodies, autoimmunity, and the lack of understanding of the conversion mechanism.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

Comments: It appears that the author does utilize relevant literature to support their discussion and findings.

The references to previous studies suggest that the author has made an effort to contextualize their case report within the existing body of literature and to explore possible explanations for the rare conversion from ITP to AAMT.

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 appears to be adequate for the topic. It's not excessively long, and it covers all the necessary elements of a case report.

Reducing the length could potentially remove important information and compromise the value of the case report.

Figures & Tables

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

A: The author appears to use images and legends appropriately to support the case report.

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Yes, the text provided is clear and understandable. The author uses medical terms appropriately and explains them in a way that makes the content accessible to a broad audience.

Overall, the case report is well written and communicates the information in a clear and understandable manner.

Further comments on the paper

Comments:

The paper presents valuable insights into the progression of idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura to acquired amegakaryocytic thrombocytopenia, and it adds to the existing literature on this rare condition. Researchers and clinicians interested in hematological disorders and rare cases would find this paper relevant and informative.

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