Next Article in Journal
Hepatectomy or/with Metastatectomy for Recurrent Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Of Promise for Selected Patients
Previous Article in Journal
An Item Response Theory Analysis of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test in Normal Aging, Alzheimer’s Disease and Parkinson’s Disease: Neurophysiological Approach
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JPM
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/jpm12040541
Review Report
jpm-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

Clinical Characteristics of Patients with Pyogenic Vertebral Osteomyelitis and Concurrent Infections and Their Clinical Outcomes

J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12(4), 541; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12040541
by Donghyun Kim 1, Jihye Kim 2 and Taehwan Kim 1,*
Reviewer 1:
Nan Jiang
Reviewer 2:
Reza Shahriarirad
J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12(4), 541; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12040541
Submission received: 14 March 2022 / Revised: 24 March 2022 / Accepted: 28 March 2022 / Published: 29 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Mechanisms of Diseases)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study, based on a retrospective analysis of 695 patients, compared clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with pyogenic verte and al osteomyelitis with and without concurrent infections. This is a nice paper with excellent presentation. I have no specific comments. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kind comments regarding our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors report a single-institutional retrospective study regarding PVO and concurrent infection. I am skeptical about the aim and title of the study and the proposed methodology and analysis. The authors mainly report a retrospective, cross-sectional evaluation of infection in their center, rather than evaluating the mentioned entities in their title; E.g., they should have matched and selected patients in two groups regarding their demographical data and evaluated regarding with and without concurrent infection, to properly evaluate their aim of study. However, based on the current applied methodology, multivariate analysis seems to be the most appropriate tool. Therefore, the authors should mainly focus on the findings of this analysis, rather than univariate analysis, to exclude confounding factors, for example the concurrent groups mainly included older aged individuals.
I also recommend a clearer title and introduction section based on the authors study design.

More details regarding the concurrent infection group and the organism are required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop