Clinical Characterization of Inpatients with Acute Conjunctivitis: A Retrospective Analysis by Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
First, I highly appreciate submitting the article. Here are two major concerns:-
1. Please perform a relevant study/literature review and try to identify the research gap to tie with your objectives. This is important to showcase that How is this study is different than the other existing literature. This will foster the establishment of the novelty of this work.
2. Please mention the key benefits of this work in the sense of why this research is important and to whom it will help. However, the problem is suitably framed and understandable.
Thank you.
Author Response
First of all, we would thank the Reviewer for the helpful comments.
First, I highly appreciate submitting the article. Here are two major concerns:-
- Please perform a relevant study/literature review and try to identify the research gap to tie with your objectives. This is important to showcase that How is this study is different than the other existing literature. This will foster the establishment of the novelty of this work.
R Many thanks for this comment. Really, we did perform a literature review before the writing. Namely, there was no study investigating this issue still mow. We included this issue in the manuscript.
- Please mention the key benefits of this work in the sense of why this research is important and to whom it will help. However, the problem is suitably framed and understandable.
R Many thanks for this comment. We provided this information.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors of this study aimed to identify and characterize inpatients with ABC treated with topical antibiotics.
However, there are some parts that need to be edited, such as the following:
Title: add the setting as inpatient
Abstract: Write down introduction, aim/objective, methods, results and conclusion, to present it as a structured abstract.
Introduction: Some references are very old and need to be updated, such as ref numbers 4,7. In addition, refer to the introduction without studies done in Spain.
Aim, line 79: re-arrange to reflect how the aim is presented in the method section.
Objectives, line 112: move to the last paragraph in the introduction section before the method section.
Method
Overall: unify the disease terminology as acute bacteria conjunctivitis or acute conjunctivitis throughout the manuscript
Results:
3.5. Visits. line 217 (3.5 visits)- move to the first section in the result
Discussion:
None.
Conclusion:
None.
Author Response
First of all, we would thank the Reviewer for the helpful comments.
The authors of this study aimed to identify and characterize inpatients with ABC treated with topical antibiotics.
However, there are some parts that need to be edited, such as the following:
Title: add the setting as inpatient
R Many thanks for this suggestion. Applied.
Abstract: Write down introduction, aim/objective, methods, results and conclusion, to present it as a structured abstract.
R Many thanks for this comment. Amended.
Introduction: Some references are very old and need to be updated, such as ref numbers 4,7. In addition, refer to the introduction without studies done in Spain.
R Many thanks for this comment. We provided refreshed references. We found only one study performed in Spain (recruiting children) and one European review on moxifloxacine; they were cited in discussion.
Aim, line 79: re-arrange to reflect how the aim is presented in the method section.
R Many thanks for this comment. We re-arranged the text as suggested.
Objectives, line 112: move to the last paragraph in the introduction section before the method section.
R Amended.
Method
Overall: unify the disease terminology as acute bacteria conjunctivitis or acute conjunctivitis throughout the manuscript
R Many thanks for this comment. However, it was correct to use the term acute conjunctivitis alone as the subset bacterial one had not yet been identified. Anyway, we amended when necessary.
Results:
3.5. Visits. line 217 (3.5 visits)- move to the first section in the result
R Many thanks for this comment. However, we have to disagree with You about this point. In fact, methods concern an a priori design, independently of the number of recruited/visited patients. The correct allocation of such numbers is in the Results section.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the revision, however, if any relevant literature is not available then authors might want to try to broaden the scope and include broadly related papers in their future iterations if they will have this on their agenda.
All the best
