Next Article in Journal
Recessive COL17A1 Mutations and a Dominant LAMB3 Mutation Cause Hypoplastic Amelogenesis Imperfecta
Next Article in Special Issue
Selective Arterial Embolization of Ruptured Hepatocellular Carcinoma with N-Butyl Cyanoacrylate and Lipiodol: Safety, Efficacy, and Short-Term Outcomes
Previous Article in Journal
Pediatric Patients with Sitosterolemia: Next-Generation Sequencing and Biochemical Examination in Clinical Practice
Previous Article in Special Issue
Safety and Efficacy of Prestige Coils for Embolization of Vascular Abnormalities: The Embo-Prestige Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JPM
Volume 13
Issue 10
10.3390/jpm13101493
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

A Feasibility Study of CT-Guided Osteosynthesis under Local Anesthesia

J. Pers. Med. 2023, 13(10), 1493; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13101493
by Joris Lavigne 1,*, Nicolas Stacoffe 1, Damien Heidelberg 1, Philippe Wagner 2 and Jean-Baptiste Pialat 1,3,4
Reviewer 1:
Abhijit Nair
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
J. Pers. Med. 2023, 13(10), 1493; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13101493
Submission received: 11 September 2023 / Revised: 6 October 2023 / Accepted: 11 October 2023 / Published: 14 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Interventional Radiology: Innovation Driving Personalized Medicine)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for submitting your work. Please address the comments raised and resubmit.

There are a number of small paragraphs (1-2 sentences) in the introduction and methods. Please organize your manuscript appropriately.

Mention how skin disinfection was performed.

The patient was then medically monitored- what parameters were exactly monitored and how frequently needed to be mentioned.

The correct terminology is numerical rating scale (NRS) and not numerical pain scale (NPS).

Statistical tests used should be elaborated- how the distribution of data was assessed, and how continuous/dichotomous data were analyzed.

Please mention how the data were entered (Excel, paper, any application/software).

If possible, present a flowchart of the included/excluded patients to summarize the results.

The English language needs to be addressed. There are a lot of technical and grammatical mistakes that need to be addressed prior to resubmission.

 

 

The English language needs major edits.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear colleagues!

 

Your research is relevant and interesting.

 

In general, I have no serious comments, and please take the questions as a discussion that can improve the presentation quality of the work.

 

1. What is your null hypothesis?

2. Why did you use a numerical pain scale (NPS) rather than a visual analogue scale?

3. Anesthetic protocol: you use only one combination. Does this mean that the history taking involved selecting patients from the same anesthetic risk group, and also excluded the phenomenon of polypharmacy or drug cross-reaction?

4. Why was paracetamol chosen?

5. In the table you need to indicate in which units the calculation was made.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

The manuscript has been thoroughly revised and I can see the change in the write-up and the language in the revised version. I thank you for making changes as suggested.

The language has improved in the revised version.

Back to TopTop