Cephalosporins’ Cross-Reactivity and the High Degree of Required Knowledge. Case Report and Review of the Literature
, Paola Frati 2, Martina Zanon 1, Eleonora Valentinuz 1, Federico Manetti 2, Matteo Scopetti 2, Alessandro Santurro 2 and Vittorio Fineschi 2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the current study, the authors presented a case of a 79-year old man who suddenly died after administration of ceftriaxone. Additionally, they present data for cephalosporins cross-reactivity, which is a phenomenon with considerable interest. The findings of the study are of interest and well presented.
Author Response
In the current study, the authors presented a case of a 79-year old man who suddenly died after administration of ceftriaxone. Additionally, they present data for cephalosporins cross-reactivity, which is a phenomenon with considerable interest. The findings of the study are of interest and well presented.
We want to thank the review for her/his kind and appreciated comment.
As the reviewer suggested, the paper has been corrected for some imperfections in the English language.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for asking me to review this fascinating case report.
Apart from a couple of minor English grammar errors – see below - this is a well written and highly informative manuscript.
My main suggestion if that the title should be emended to include “review of the literature”.
My other suggestion is to remove the emphasis on the medico-legal issues both within the title and the manuscript – whilst important for the case itself – my main interest in the manuscript is in its literature review.
Line 84 After death, medical malpractice of GP was complained - complained is the wrong term – reported would be a better term.
Line 101 The other organs did not show any specific pathological alterations except for a cerebral oedema…should be “..except for cerebral oedema…”
Author Response
Thank you for asking me to review this fascinating case report. Apart from a couple of minor English grammar errors – see below - this is a well written and highly informative manuscript.
We want to thank the review for her/his kind and appreciated comment.
My main suggestion if that the title should be emended to include “review of the literature”.
We added the suggested phrase in the title.
My other suggestion is to remove the emphasis on the medico-legal issues both within the title and the manuscript – whilst important for the case itself – my main interest in the manuscript is in its literature review.
We did it.
Line 84 After death, medical malpractice of GP was complained - complained is the wrong term – reported would be a better term.
We have corrected this mistake.
Line 101 The other organs did not show any specific pathological alterations except for a cerebral oedema…should be “..except for cerebral oedema…”
We have corrected this mistake.
