Review History


All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.

Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on July 26th, 2024 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on December 10th, 2024.
  • The first revision was submitted on December 30th, 2024 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on February 13th, 2025.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Feb 13, 2025 · Academic Editor

Accept

Dear authors,

Congratulations. Your manuscript is not accepted for publication. Thank your for submitting to PeerJ.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

No comment

Experimental design

No comment

Validity of the findings

No comment

Additional comments

Well written article regarding a relatively rare visceral artery aneurysm.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

no comment

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

None

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Dec 10, 2024 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

As noted by R1, this is a widely known result. Please carefully address the need for this paper and what it adds to already published articles

[# PeerJ Staff Note: PeerJ can provide language editing services if you wish - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Your revision deadline is always extended while you undergo language editing. #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The study design was professional and the article was well written.

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

The conclusion was widely known, and there were not enough new fundings for this area.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

You included gastroduodenal artery aneurysm and excluded pancreatico-duodenal artery aneurysm, right?

I think there is a difference in the treatment outcomes of aneurysm between true aneurysm and pseudoaneurysm. How about these variables included in the outcome analyisis?


I think the variables need to be more clear
for example,
1) pancreatitis should be defined and divided into acute and chronic pancreatitis.
2) pancreatic obstruction --> pancreatic duct obstruction
3) vessel obstruction --> artery or vein obstruction

Experimental design

systemic review of previously published reports

Validity of the findings

I think TAE and percutaneous thrombin injection are similar treatment options even though the access is different.
Anyway GDAA are treated by endovascular means about 90%, which included TAE, stenting.
It is notable current trend of GDAA treatment.

Additional comments

None

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

no comment

Experimental design

Being part of the collateral networks between the celiac (CA) and superior mesenteric (SMA) territories, aneurysms of pancreaticoduodenal and sometimes gastroduodenal artery were reported to be closely associated with concomitant stenotic/occlusive lesion of either CA or SMA. Embolization of GDAA in such cases may have to deal with the risk of visceral ischemia due to loss of vital collateral blood perfusion. Please address whether in this systemic review the presence of GDAAs were found to be related to concomitant CA/SMA lesion. Or, alternatively, please justify the decision not to include concomitant stenotic/occlusive lesion of either CA or SMA as one of the predisposing factors.

Validity of the findings

Nearly all the percentages of "TAE%", "surgery%", and "observation%" in the Tables do not add up to 100%, please clarify.
In the Discussion part, the authors should acknowledge the potential survivorship bias in the case reports.

Additional comments

No additional comments.

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.