The Measurement of Elderly Volunteers’ Optic Nerve Sheath Diameters by Ocular Ultrasonography
, Nalan Kozaci 1, Erdal Komut 2, Seval Komut 3, Gulsum Caliskan 1 and Gul Tulubas 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting article dealing with the ONSD reference range in healthy elderly subjects.
Unfortunately there are several flaws:
Several studies in the current literature report the utility of A scan standardized echography to evaluate the ONSD,
these articles should be cited and discussed,
e.g.
1) Comment on "Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter Ultrasound Evaluation in Intensive Care Unit: Possible Role and Clinical Aspects in Neurological Critical Patients' Daily Monitoring".
De Bernardo M, Rosa N.
Biomed Res Int. 2018 Sep 16;2018:6154357
2) Optic nerve sheath diameter measurement in patients with idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus.
De Bernardo M, Rosa N.
Eur J Neurol. 2018 Feb;25(2):e24.
Tables 1-3: please specify what P means, and how was the statistical analysis performed, for each table
Discussion: the age subgroups are not homogeneous. The authors should discuss this point in the text among one of the limitations of this study.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Reviewer 1,
We are thankful to you for your recommends.
We revised our manuscript as your and the reviewer 2's recommends.
We listed all the changes we made below.
We hope you will accept our manuscript.
Sincerely yours,
Corresponding author.
Point 1: Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
Response1: The MDPI English Editing Service edited all of our manuscript. The changes can be seen in the word document and throughout the document.
Point 2:
Yes | Can be improved | Must be improved | Not applicable | |
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? | ( ) | (x) | ( ) | ( ) |
Is the research design appropriate? | ( ) | (x) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the methods adequately described? | ( ) | (x) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the results clearly presented? | ( ) | (x) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the conclusions supported by the results? | ( ) | (x) | ( ) | ( ) |
Response 2: We tried to improve all sections of our manuscript. The changes can be seen in the word document and throughout the document.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This is an interesting article dealing with the ONSD reference range in healthy elderly subjects.
Unfortunately there are several flaws:
Point 3: Several studies in the current literature report the utility of A scan standardized echography to evaluate the ONSD,
these articles should be cited and discussed,
e.g.
1) Comment on "Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter Ultrasound Evaluation in Intensive Care Unit: Possible Role and Clinical Aspects in Neurological Critical Patients' Daily Monitoring".
De Bernardo M, Rosa N.
Biomed Res Int. 2018 Sep 16;2018:6154357
2) Optic nerve sheath diameter measurement in patients with idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus.
De Bernardo M, Rosa N.
Eur J Neurol. 2018 Feb;25(2):e24.
Response 3: We cited both two articles in introduction section (Reference numbers are 9 and 12). Furthermore, we cited an additionally reference numbered 10 (Toscano M, Spadetta G, Pulitano P, Rocco M, Di Piero V, Mecarelli O, et al. Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter Ultrasound Evaluation in Intensive Care Unit: Possible Role and Clinical Aspects in Neurological Critical Patients' Daily Monitoring. BiomedResInt. 2017;2017:1621428. doi: 10.1155/2017/1621428. Epub 2017 Mar 21.) Page 2 Line 60-69, Page 6 Line 177-180, 205-208.
Point 4: Tables 1-3: please specify what P means, and how was the statistical analysis performed, for each table
Response 4: We specified what P means and how the statistical analysis was performed, for each table. Page 5 under the tables 1-3.
Point 5: Discussion: the age subgroups are not homogeneous. The authors should discuss this point in the text among one of the limitations of this study.
Response 5: We added a limitation section and mentioned the point that the age subgroups are not homogeneous. Page 7 Line 213-216.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper deals with a really interesting topic, but this technique has several drawbacks, as it has been clearly stated by several papers in the international literature (among the others: 1) Ocular Ultrasound Assessment to Estimate the Risk of Increased Intracranial Pressure after Traumatic Brain Injury in Prehospital Setting. De Bernardo M, Vitiello L, Rosa N. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2019 Jan 11:1-2. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2019.1568652.
2) Comment on 'Invasive and noninvasive means of measuring intracranial pressure: a review'. De Bernardo M, Rosa N. Physiol Meas. 2018 Jun 1;39(5):058001.
3) Optic nerve ultrasonography for evaluating increased intracranial pressure in severe preeclampsia.
De Bernardo M, Vitiello L, Rosa N. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2019 May;38:147.)
These topics should be addressed and discussed
The kind of test used for the different variables should be specified in the tables.
Paper needs to be edited by a native English speaker.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Reviewer 2,
We are thankful to you for your recommends.
We revised our manuscript as your and the reviewer 1's recommends.
We listed all the changes we made below.
We hope you will accept our manuscript.
Sincerely yours,
Corresponding author.
Point 1: Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
Response1: The MDPI English Editing Service edited all of our manuscript. The changes can be seen in the word document and throughout the document.
Point 2:
Yes | Can be improved | Must be improved | Not applicable | |
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? | ( ) | (x) | ( ) | ( ) |
Is the research design appropriate? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the methods adequately described? | ( ) | (x) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the results clearly presented? | ( ) | (x) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the conclusions supported by the results? | ( ) | (x) | ( ) | ( ) |
Response 2: We tried to improve all sections of our manuscript. The changes can be seen in the word document and throughout the document.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Point 3: This paper deals with a really interesting topic, but this technique has several drawbacks, as it has been clearly stated by several papers in the international literature (among the others: 1) Ocular Ultrasound Assessment to Estimate the Risk of Increased Intracranial Pressure after Traumatic Brain Injury in Prehospital Setting. De Bernardo M, Vitiello L, Rosa N. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2019 Jan 11:1-2. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2019.1568652.
2) Comment on 'Invasive and noninvasive means of measuring intracranial pressure: a review'. De Bernardo M, Rosa N. Physiol Meas. 2018 Jun 1;39(5):058001.
3) Optic nerve ultrasonography for evaluating increased intracranial pressure in severe preeclampsia.
De Bernardo M, Vitiello L, Rosa N. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2019 May;38:147.)
These topics should be addressed and discussed
Response 3: We cited these three articles in introduction section (Reference numbers are 11, 13 and 14). Page 2 Line 60-69.
Point 4: The kind of test used for the different variables should be specified in the tables.
Response 4: The kind of test used for the different variables was specified in the tables. Page 5 under the tables 1-3.
Point 5: Paper needs to be edited by a native English speaker.
Response 5: The MDPI English Editing Service edited all of our manuscript. The changes can be seen in the word document and throughout the document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors modified the text according to the previous suggestions
