Foreign Body Aspiration in Children—Diagnostic Clues through a Clinical Case
, Stefano Guarino 1, Pierluigi Marzuillo 1,* and Andrea Apicella 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a very interesting case report on FBA inhalation in children. Overall tha article is complete. A few details could be added:
-Did the patient have a second coughing episode prior to his fall from the feeding highchair? You mention no in the discussion session, but it os good to add this to the case report presentation instead.
- Did the patient have any history of almond and other peanut consumption? If yes the authors should discussed on this as peanut consumption is contraindicated in this age group
- How many days was the patient intubated?
Author Response
This is a very interesting case report on FBA inhalation in children. Overall the article is complete. A few details could be added:
-Did the patient have a second coughing episode prior to his fall from the feeding highchair? You mention no in the discussion session, but it os good to add this to the case report presentation instead.
Answer: This fall occurred in apparent well-being, without the presence of anticipatory signs or symptoms (we added this information in the new version of the manuscript, please see lines 42-43 of the new version of the manuscript).
- Did the patient have any history of almond and other peanut consumption? If yes the authors should discussed on this as peanut consumption is contraindicated in this age group
Answer: This patient had never consumed almonds or other peanuts before and in this circumstance took almond occasionally. We added this information in the text, please see lines 62-63 and 153-155 of the new version of the manuscript.
- How many days was the patient intubated?
Answer: The baby was intubated for 24 hours. We have added this information in the new version of the manuscript, please see lines 64-66 of the new version of the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors:
Although the topic addressed is interesting for the specialized scientific community in Pediatrics, the submitted manuscript has methodological and formal limitations.
From the methodological point of view, the presentation of a case study on this subject is not justified due to its moderate incidence in the pediatric population. If the authors intended to make a systematic review of the literature related to this topic, they should first register their study in the PROSPERO database and then develop it appropriately with the PRISMA statement.
Furthermore, from a formal point of view, the development of the different sections of Introduction, Material and Methods, Results, and Discussion is clearly deficient or, in some cases, nonexistent.
For all these reasons, I encourage the authors to continue developing this line of research but to be more rigorous in their methodology.
Kind regards
Author Response
Answer: our aim was not to write a systematic review that has different methodology and writing technique. Our aim was to start from a clinical case to show the difficulties found in the clinical management providing to the readers diagnostic clues to early suspect FBA and underlining all the diagnostic issues. Moreover, in the discussion section we made a short narrative review comparing the characteristics found in literature with those of our patient. Probably the previous title of our manuscript created misleading expectative to the Readers because contained the word “review”. For this reason, we modified the title of the manuscript from: “Foreign body aspiration in children - a review of literature through a clinical case” to “Foreign body aspiration in children - diagnostic clues through a clinical case” (please see lines 2-3 of the new version of the manuscript).
Reviewer 3 Report
his is an interesting paper. i have some minor criticisms. ultrasound and x-ray are common than ct scan. So it is my opinion that even if in your discussion you add infomations about the role of x-ray, you have also to add some reasons about ultrasound. the efficacy dpends on the skill of who permorf it, while xray is an objective data.
Author Response
Answer: following your comment we discussed this issue in the new version of the manuscript (please see lines 176-181 of the new version of the manuscript).
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I still maintain my initial opinion about your work. This journal has a quality and prestige that should be endorsed with research of a high methodological level and, consequently, with great clinical impact.
The methodology applied prevents the achievement of these objectives.
Kind regards
