Prevalence and Clinical Consideration of Anatomical Variants of the Splenic Artery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
, Álvaro Becerra-Farfan 4, Mathias Orellana-Donoso 1, Alejandro Bruna Mejias 6, Qareen Hania Syed 3, Macarena Rodriguez Luengo 6 and Joe Iwanaga 7
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Here are a few comments, but please check uploaded PDF for additional notes - these are the major concerns
1. Please note that it is "lienal" artery and not "linear" artery as stated in the abstract and Introduction aims
2. Please check origin of splenic artery - L1 is generally accepted as the origin of the SMA?
3. There is no such thing as an "omental bag" - please make sure to use anatomically correct terminology as presented in the TA2 - it should either be omental bursa or lesser sac
4. There are multiple grammatical errors throughout the document - I highly recommend this be checked
5. Under materials and methods, authors mention this "literature" review - it should rather be "systematic" review
6. The search terms in the section 2 do not match those mentioned in the abstract
7. Bias cannot be checked or analyzed using the AQUA checklist - this tool is not designed to check quality and bias of articles, it was designed to help authors structure there anatomical articles more scientifically - the original article even states this is not meant to be used to assess quality! The authors should therefore provide bold clarity as to why and how they adapted this checklist to fulfill the parameters of this study. Risk of bias can be checked using the Cochrane Collaborations risk of bias tool - but needs to be adapted for basic science studies as necessary
8. Please provide clarity as to how these "domains" were constructed - these are not listed in the original AQUA checklist - and also elaborate on the numerical connections made in the "bias" analysis - this tool at this moment seems to have been incorrectly used and therefore the results themselves are at risk of bias
9. Please use another term than "corpses" - rather use cadavers or specimens
10. There are no references to the Tables in the text
11. Again - provide more clarity on the domains and their link to the AQUA checklist
12. Please provide labels on the Figures
13. It is not statistically sound to report an incidence of 100% for a case study - since this is a given as they are reporting on this specific finding in a case
14. In section 3.2 there are too many abbreviations used in the paragraphs - there is not context and no list of abbreviations provided; also what is "concentrated type" - this is in the last sentence of section 3.2
15. The first sentence of 3.3 is exactly the same as the last sentence of 3.2? There is no explanation or reference to what is "concentrated" and "distributed" types?
16. The second sentence of section 3.3 has not context - it just list a bunch of numbers and values?
17. Table 3 has a column that says Statistical values - however all says "doesn't present" - but in the previous column statistical values are given in terms of incidence (percentages) - is this not statistical values? - Please clarify; Also again, saying 100% incidence for case studies is not statistically sound
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
I appreciate your comments and the time you took to read our manuscript, and I respond to your proposed changes below.
- Please note that it is "lienal" artery and not "linear" artery as stated in the abstract and
Introduction aims.
Linear has been changed to linear.
- Please check origin of splenic artery - L1 is generally accepted as the origin of the SMA?
Fixed the origin of the splenic artery in the places with the mentioned error.
- There is no such thing as an "omental bag" - please make sure to use anatomically correct terminology as presented in the TA2 - it should either be omental bursa or lesser sac.
It has been modified by omental bursaa or lesser sac.
- There are multiple grammatical errors throughout the document - I highly recommend this be checked.
The manuscript was sent to the publisher for proofreading, where this error was corrected and the changes were made.
- Under materials and methods, authors mention this "literature" review - it should rather be "systematic" review.
Literature review was modified by systematic review.
- The search terms in section 2 do not match those mentioned in the abstract.
The search terms were left in the same way both in the abstract and in the manuscript in the methods section.
- Bias cannot be checked or analyzed using the AQUA checklist - this tool is not designed to check quality and bias of articles, it was designed to help authors structure there anatomical articles more scientifically - the original article even states this is not meant to be used to assess quality! The authors should therefore provide bold clarity as to why and how they adapted this checklist to fulfill the parameters of this study. Risk of bias can be checked using the Cochrane Collaborations risk of bias tool - but needs to be adapted for basic science studies as necessary.
It was explained in the manuscript that this tool is to see primary studies, so it is seen if it met the criteria for the elaboration of each of the included studies.
- Please provide clarity on how these 'domains' were constructed (they are not listed in the original AQUA checklist) and also detail the numerical connections made in the 'bias' analysis - this tool at this point appears to have been misused and therefore Therefore, the results themselves are at risk of bias.
The domains that are evaluated in the table were included in the AQUA table to clearly detail each of the aforementioned.
- Please use another term than "corpses" - rather use cadavers or specimens
It changed corpses for cadavers
- There are no references to the Tables in the text
All the tables have been referenced correctly according to the indications proposed.
- Again - provide more clarity on the domains and their link to the AQUA checklist
The domains were added in the AQUA checklist table and each of the components that meet the different studies
- Please provide labels on the Figures
The structures in the figures have been indicated with abbreviations.
- It is not statistically sound to report a 100% incidence for a case study, as this is a given given that they report this specific finding in one case.
The manuscript was changed and the incidents were removed only declaring them as case studies.
- In section 3.2 there are too many abbreviations used in the paragraphs - there is not context and no list of abbreviations provided; also what is "concentrated type" - this is in the last sentence of section 3.2
Abbreviations have been placed with context and what was incorrect was removed.
- Is the first sentence of 3.3 exactly the same as the last sentence of 3.2? Is there no explanation or reference to what the "concentrated" and "distributed" types are?
he sentence was deleted
- The second sentence of section 3.3 has no context - it just lists a bunch of numbers and values?
Removed the section and values
- Table 3 has a column that says Statistical values - however all says "doesn't present" - but in the previous column statistical values are given in terms of incidence (percentages) - is this not statistical values? - Please clarify; Also again, saying 100% incidence for case studies is not statistically sound
The column of statistical values was eliminated, in addition the incidence of 100% was eliminated
Sincerely
Research team
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for submitting the manuscript to Applied Sciences.
The manuscript seems to be informative and helpful to the fellow researchers.
I suggest several things to revise as follows.
- It would be better to add indications of branch names in Figures 2, 3, 5.
- Text size of the tables should be decreased.
- In the tables sample characteristics should be described in constant manner. For example, Nakamura et al., 2002 is described as 3 corpses, which should be changed into 3 cadavers. Whether the samples are cadaver or alive people should be clearly noted.
- Throughout the manuscript, please observe the submission guideline. For example, citation in the text should be like [11], rather than (11).
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
I appreciate your comments and the time you took to read our manuscript, and I respond to your proposed changes below.
- It would be better to add indications of branch names in Figures 2, 3, 5.
The indications of figure 2,3,5 have been changed
- The size of the text in the tables should be reduced.
The text in the tables was reduced from size 12 to size 10.
- In the tables, the characteristics of the sample must be described consistently. For example, Nakamura et al., 2002 is described as 3 corpses, which should be converted to 3 corpses. It must be clearly indicated if the samples are cadavers or living persons.
The word body has been changed on the tablets and throughout the manuscript to cadavers or living persons.
- hroughout the manuscript, observe the submission guideline. For example, the in-text citation should be like [11], instead of (11).
Eighth notes were added throughout the manuscript to comply with the journal style.
Sincerely
Research team
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Please refer an updated manuscript version to this ref.: Covantsev, S.; Alieva, F.; Mulaeva, K.; Mazuruc, N.; Belic, O. Morphological Evaluation of the Splenic Artery, Its Anatomical Variations and Irrigation Territory. Life 2023, 13, 195. https://doi.org/10.3390/life13010195.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
I appreciate your comments and the time you took to read our manuscript, and I respond to your proposed changes below.
- Please refer an updated manuscript version to this ref.: Covantsev, S.; Alieva, F.; Mulaeva, K.; Mazuruc, N.; Belic, O. Morphological Evaluation of the Splenic Artery, Its Anatomical Variations and Irrigation Territory. Life 2023, 13, 195. https://doi.org/10.3390/life13010195.
I agree with this reference, which is why it is included in the discussion
Sincerely
Research team
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for addressing all the comments
