Next Article in Journal
Sepsis: Current Clinical Practices and New Perspectives: Introduction to the Special Issue
Previous Article in Journal
Bscl2 Deficiency Does Not Directly Impair the Innate Immune Response in a Murine Model of Generalized Lipodystrophy
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Post-Operative Permanent Hypoparathyroidism and Preoperative Vitamin D Prophylaxis

J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10(3), 442; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10030442
by Tara Kannan 1, Yasmin Foster 1, David J. Ho 1, Scott J. Gelzinnis 1, Michael Merakis 1, Katie Wynne 1,2, Zsolt J. Balogh 1,3,* and Cino Bendinelli 1,3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10(3), 442; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10030442
Submission received: 2 December 2020 / Revised: 10 January 2021 / Accepted: 18 January 2021 / Published: 24 January 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Endocrinology & Metabolism)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Line 34 please precise 60 per 100000 patients

38 can lead

42 can lead or may lead

52 How? Eplain!

169 can be

170 ectopic calcification is extrem rare, please add literature

180 significance

195 follow-up

203 please use generic name

219 hypothetical, add literature

The limitation of the study is the definition of hypoparathyroidsm based on the supplementation of activated vitamine D alone. To define hypoparathyroidism at least calcium and PTH levels 6 months postoperatively are necessary (if not even vitamine D levels). There are  patients whith hypoparathyroidism who are under calcium supplementation and there may be also patients who take vitamine d without need.

Therefore calcium and PTH levels after 6 months in patients who presented hypoparathyroidsm postoperatively are necessary. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

No changes, great work

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The data analysis  is appropriate, methods are adequately described and the conclusions are supported by the results. 

In line 211 there is a repat error (that that)

English language and style are adeguate

The authors are critical of both strengths and limitations of the paper

English language and style are adeguate

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop