Next Article in Journal
Sarcoidosis Mimicking Primary Lung Cancer on 99mTc-3PRGD2 Scintigraphy in a PTC Patient
Previous Article in Journal
Prognostic Nomograms for Hospital Survival and Transplant-Free Survival of Patients with Hepatorenal Syndrome: A Retrospective Cohort Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 12
Issue 6
10.3390/diagnostics12061416
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
Systematic Review
Peer-Review Record

NT-proBNP Concentrations in the Umbilical Cord and Serum of Term Neonates: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Diagnostics 2022, 12(6), 1416; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12061416
by Evangelos Christou 1,2,*,†, Zoe Iliodromiti 1,†, Abraham Pouliakis 3, Rozeta Sokou 1, Matina Zantiotou 4, Chrisa Petropoulou 1, Theodora Boutsikou 1 and Nicoletta Iacovidou 1
Reviewer 1:
Maria Goulielmaki
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Diagnostics 2022, 12(6), 1416; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12061416
Submission received: 8 May 2022 / Revised: 29 May 2022 / Accepted: 6 June 2022 / Published: 8 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Point-of-Care Diagnostics and Devices)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the manuscript by Christou et al., the authors present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current bibliography regarding the normal NT-proBNP concentrations in the umbilical cord and serum of term neonates. The authors claim that this is the first time that such a study has been conducted. Based on this, the results of the present study could be of potential interest. However, several points need further investigation: 

1. The Introduction section is quite brief and needs to be further expanded in order to help the reader understand the role of BNP in health and disease and the significance and potential of NT-proBNP as a biomarker.

2. Figure 1 needs to be corrected since paragraph symbols appear.

3. The authors have analyzed the results using and showing each time the fixed weight method and the random weight model. These two models give significantly different results. The authors should discuss the observed differences between the results of each method, as well as the difference between the two methods themselves.

4. In the discussion section, the authors present the serum NT-proBNP levels in healthy term infants during the neonatal period. However, especially regarding the random model there is a high deviation between recorded  values. Do the authors believe it would be safe to use of these values as reference for normal NT-proBNP levels?

5. Discussion should be more concise and targeted.

 

Author Response

see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this systematic review authors evaluated the studies available in literature regarding the role of NT-proBNP in UCB samples, and from serum collected during the first month of life of healthy term neonates. They found that NT-proBNP levels were generally higher in UCB compared to serum samples. Moreover, authors also showed the reference intervals of NT-proBNP in UCB and in serum.

This manuscript is clear and generally well written. Morever, this data are very useful and suggest a possible use of NT-proBNP as marker for the evaluation of potential adverse effects of perinatal factors. Thus, I have only the following comments: 

  • pharagraph sign in figure 1 must be removed
  • an accurate revision of typing error is highly suggested

Author Response

see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no further comments.

Back to TopTop