Numerical Analysis of Urine Flow with Multiple Sizes of Double-J Stents
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The abstract should contain the message that the results of this computed reseach not necessarly correlate with clinical situation as peristalsis, viscisity of the urine and real format of the ureter were not considered in their model.
In vivo experiments are necessary for confirmation of their findings.
Type error in line 302 :undilated
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Please describe if any statistical methods were sued to compare the various sized ureters.
p values should be mentioned in the figures.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The research conducted here by Kim et al. on double-J stent using computational fluid dynamics models is well researched and involved rigorous computational methods.
I would like to just point out to some minor typo errors and restructuring in some areas to make the manuscript better.
- Improving the figure 1, specifically its contrast and labels on right side.
- Figure 10 color scheme is very odd and can be used with lighter shades or a combination of lighter and darker shade.
- Line 246, the spelling on discussion is wrong (typo).
- The conclusion could be improved and should highlight how their research improved the larger double-J stents were not favorable in achieving an acceptable urine flow through a stented ureter. Add some more lines explaining a little bit more the importance of this study.
- Check for other typos too using any spelling checking software, as found a lot in the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
