Next Article in Journal
Diagnosing Melanomas in Dermoscopy Images Using Deep Learning
Previous Article in Journal
Clinical Applications of TSPO PET for Glioma Imaging: Current Evidence and Future Perspective—A Systematic Review
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Association between Cerebrospinal Fluid and Serum Biomarker Levels and Diagnosis, Injury Severity, and Short-Term Outcomes in Patients with Acute Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury

Diagnostics 2023, 13(10), 1814; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13101814
by Zhihui Yang 1,†, Seza Apiliogullari 2,*,†, Yueqiang Fu 1,†, Ayah Istanbouli 1, Sehajpreet Kaur 1, Iktej Singh Jabbal 1, Ahmed Moghieb 1, Zoha Irfan 1, Robert Logan Patterson 1, Milin Kurup 1, Lindsey Morrow 1, Michael Cohn 1, Zhiqun Zhang 1, Jiepei Zhu 2, Ronald L. Hayes 3, Helen M. Bramlett 4, M. Ross Bullock 4, W. Dalton Dietrich 4, Michael Y. Wang 4, Firas Kobeissy 1,2 and Kevin W. Wang 1,2,5,*add Show full author list remove Hide full author list
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Diagnostics 2023, 13(10), 1814; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13101814
Submission received: 2 March 2023 / Revised: 24 April 2023 / Accepted: 26 April 2023 / Published: 22 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Clinical Laboratory Medicine)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The aim of the this prospective controlled study was to determine the CSF and serum profile of 10 biomarkers as diagnosis, severity and prognosis of SCI. 
The main concern is the small sample size and the   Weakness of introduction to explain the rationale of study. There are several studies in this field with a larger sample size. 
All abbreviations should be explained for the first use.

Author Response

Please see the attached response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. In this manuscript authors have presented analyses of CSF biomarkers in patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injury. There are certain issues that need to be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication. Firstly, I would recommend that authors make corrections to their analysis for multiple comparisons. Given the small sample size, there are chances of type I error. Correction for multiple comparisons will make analysis more robust. Secondly, authors have provided IRB number as “….”, which needs to be corrected. Lastly, there are grammatical errors and spelling mistakes and frequent fonts changes at certain places without any obvious need. These need to be corrected before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attached response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All of my comments have responded satisfactorily. 

Author Response

Please see the attached revised version. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop