Penetrating Ulcer of the Ascending Aorta Associated With Intramural Hematoma and Complicated by Dissection: A Case Report

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 indeed relevant to the journal of surgery's area of interest.
The topic is also contemporary and interesting for researchers as it contributes to the ongoing discourse on Acute Aortic Syndromes (AAS), particularly PAU and its rare progression towards AD.

Abstract & Keywords

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

Comments: The abstract does include all the necessary components.

Regarding the keywords, they seem to be appropriately chosen as they align well with the topic 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 coherent and follows a conventional structure for a case report, which includes an introduction, presentation of the case, discussion and a conclusion.

Discussion & Conclusion

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

Comments: The discussion and conclusion sections in this case report are well related to the results and observations presented in the case presentation. They do a good job of interpreting the findings, aligning them with existing literature, and making relevant suggestions for clinical practice. They provide a historical perspective and contemporary understanding of PAUs and their evolution to AD, lending further credibility to their interpretations.

Overall, the paper is coherent in its presentation and interpretation of the clinical case, providing valuable insights for both clinical practice and future research.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

Comments: Yes, the author appears to use relevant literature in their work. They have incorporated multiple scientific references to support their arguments and establish a foundation for their case study.

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: The paper appears to be well-written with a clear and understandable style. The author does a good job of explaining their points, which should be accessible to readers familiar with the topic.

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

Further comments on the paper

Comments:

Here are some general comments:
1. Detailed Case Presentation: The authors provided an extensive report of the patient's clinical presentation, diagnostic process, treatment, and follow-up, giving readers a comprehensive understanding of the case.

2. Strong Use of Literature: The paper is well-grounded in existing research, historical perspectives, and contemporary clinical guidelines. The references are also used effectively to support the authors' conclusions and to provide a broader context for the case.

3. Clear Structure and Language: The paper is well-structured, adhering to the standard format of a case study, with clear and understandable language.

4. Discussing a Rare Condition: The authors bring attention to a less common clinical scenario (PAU in the ascending aorta evolving into AD), which adds to the paper's significance.

Overall, it appears the authors have done an excellent job presenting this complex and intriguing case. The paper should be of interest to clinicians and researchers in the field of cardiovascular medicine and surgery.

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