Extracorporeal Shockwave Applicator for Spinal Pain and Muscular Contracture: A New Design Approach
and Vlad Andrei Ciubotariu 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments to Authors:
The structure and development of the study is not very good. The article needs more scientific rigor.
The title is correct
The structure of the abstract is unclear (introduction, methods, results, conclusion). Authors should rewrite the abstract and clarify the information.
What do the authors mean by "numerical study"?
The structure of the text is not correct (introduction, methods, results, conclusion).
The authors should expose in more detail what shock waves are and what they are for. They should not mention figure 1. That should be put in methodology.
The last paraph should be the introduction the justification for the study and the end of the section, there is objective left.
The structure of the section 2 is not correct.
Line 51-54: this paraph should be in introduction section.
Line 54-55: this sentence should be in introduction section.
Line 55-56: references?
The structure of the section 3 is not correct.
Line 139-160. The data of the experiment should go in the results section. The authors explain details of the study that should be in the method section.
Line 161: the type of statistical analysis must be in the method section
The authors provide many details in the results section that should be in the method section
A discussion section is missing
The authors must write a conclusion consisting of 2-3 lines that provides the most important result of the study
The authors should add a limitation section.
The authors should add authors contribution.
The style of the references is not correct.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The idea for using a dual applicator rather than single applicator for shockwave therapy is interesting however the manuscript is hard to understand for someone with background outside of mathematical modeling. It would be helpful to include a paragraph in the discussion section interpreting the findings of the study and why this work would be helpful for the treatment of spinal trauma. Some of the other work form the field of spinal trauma should be referenced and the present data should be interpreted in the context of the current state in the field.
The data are especially interesting given the current mechanism of action of shockwave therapy for improving function following spinal trauma. A mention of how this new model would relate to the proposed mechanism of action would substantially improve the manuscript.
Interpretation of data using more layman's language would be helpful.
The manuscript would benefit from being edited by the native language speaker for sentence structure.
Line 1 It is not clear what the term “spinal” in the title refers to. Please consider rewording the title.
Line 19 The term “numerical study” is confusing. What does it mean? Consider rewording.
Is the treatment applied to spinal cord or spinal muscles? Please unify within the text.
Please consider including a scheme of a spinal cord to demonstrate the details about how the treatment will be applied.
Line 68.. has to be normal to the skin.. what does this mean, please consider rewording.
Figure 2. the dual tip applicator is 40-80, what are the units here?
Line 143. Throughout the text, there are statements such as:” The von Mises stresses [MPa] were measured at the button area of the applicator and in the soft 142 tissue as maximum recorded values” making it seems that the experiment was conducted on a piece of soft tissue rather than on a simulation of a soft tissue. This makes the text harder to understand, please consider rewording.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors should rewrite the paper in the correct verb tense. They use the present a lot when it should be past
The authors contribution has not the journal´s style.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is now much improved.
I have few more comments.
- The word treatment in the title is misleading. The title would read better if reworded as proposed or similar: Extracorporeal Shockwave Applicator as a Treatment for Spinal Pain and Muscular Contracture.
- line 66.. by handling both muscles... should be rephrased to "... by targeting both sides of the tissue..."
- Line 106.. "Small pressure affects.." should be corrected to ..."Low pressure affects..."
- Figure 3C. What does the panel show? Please add into text.
- Please expand the Figure legend of Figure 10 to include details such as what what does the time (sec) indicate, what is the frequency of the stimulation, what do different colors represent?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
