Next Article in Journal
Immunologic Pathophysiology and Airway Remodeling Mechanism in Severe Asthma: Focused on IgE-Mediated Pathways
Previous Article in Journal
Comparison of Two Different Semiquantitative Urinary Dipstick Tests with Albumin-to-Creatinine Ratio for Screening and Classification of Albuminuria According to KDIGO. A Diagnostic Test Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 11
Issue 1
10.3390/diagnostics11010082
Review Report
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Lung Ultrasound Is Often, but Not Always, Normal in Healthy Subjects: Considerations for COVID-19 Pandemic

Diagnostics 2021, 11(1), 82; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11010082
by Alberto Raiteri 1,*, Margherita Alvisi 1, Ilaria Serio 1,2, Federico Stefanini 2, Francesco Tovoli 1,2 and Fabio Piscaglia 1,2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Diagnostics 2021, 11(1), 82; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11010082
Submission received: 30 October 2020 / Revised: 14 December 2020 / Accepted: 4 January 2021 / Published: 6 January 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Medical Imaging and Theranostics)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is an interesting analysis performed in the setting of academic hospital performing lung ultrasound in health care workers. The analysis identify high prevalence of subclinical abnormalities on lung ultrasound. The main disappointing part is the discussion section where no reference is reported to support the main finding of the paper and thus need to be extensively re-written.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, congratulations on a very interesting, practical and critical study. I believe the article raises a very important point regarding the "weaknesses" and "strengths" of LUS in COVID-19 diagnosis.

My only reservation concerns the presentation of the results and the structure of conclusions and discussions.

  1. Much data is repeated in figures and in the text. I propose to select the old key for the final conclusions, describe them in the text and indicate that the detailed results are included in subsequent figures or described in tables.
  2. The discussion as it stands is basically a repetition of the results. In the same time, the conclusions take the form of discussions. In my opinion, these parts need to be rewritten. I suggest referring to other studies on COVID-19 imaging in the discussion. Referring to the strengths and weaknesses of CT, clinical symptoms etc.
  3. Conclusions should be less elaborate in literary form. The place to discuss the results is discussion. Applications should be brief, more in the form of "take home massages"

 

Summing up, I believe that the work should be published, but please re-edit the indicated parts of the article firstly so that it would be more legible and understandable also for people who do not perform LUS

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

Congratulations on your interesting work, thank you also for including my suggestions in the revision of the manuscript. I am satisfied with the amendments made. I am pleased to recommend the publication of this article

 

Best regards

Back to TopTop