Development of a New Prototype Paediatric Central Sleep Apnoea Monitor

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents the development of a novel device designed to monitor breathing in children diagnosed with central sleep apnoea (CSA), addressing a critical healthcare need. This device includes the ability to record respiratory signals during sleep and store them onboard for later analysis, providing valuable data for healthcare professionals; therefore, it is capable of detecting abnormal respiratory pauses and generating alarms to alert caregivers, ensuring timely intervention for children with breathing difficulties. The device is also designed to be user-friendly and cost-effective, allowing parents and caregivers to operate it easily and understand the monitoring process, facilitating better care for children with sleep apnoea. I have the following questions, can corresponding explanations be provided in the paper to enhance its values?

 

1.      The absence of real-time analysis of sleep patterns in the current device may hinder the provision of prompt feedback and intervention for respiratory pauses. There is a potential risk of sensor detachment if the child pulls the flexible band forcefully, resulting in false alarms following a predetermined respiratory pause. The current model lacks advanced features like wireless data transmission, real-time respiration analysis, user interface, and remote alarm capabilities, which could restrict its functionality and convenience.

2.      According to the article, it is advisable to list comparisons with similar commercial products in terms of functionality and outline their advantages and disadvantages. Such as CüboAi: https://uk.getcubo.com/pages/cuboai-feature-safety#safety-micro-motion , https://uk.getcubo.com/products/sleep-sensor-pad , or others?

 

3.      According to the paper, the device uses a piezoelectric film sensor to convert chest movements into electrical signals and detects respiratory pauses by calculating the amplitude of the signal. In real infant use, is the placement appropriate? This paper does not place the device on real infants (the proposed device was evaluated on 10 healthy adult volunteers). However, the paper should have a stronger statement that the device is indeed suitable for use on infants and complies with official national regulations.

Author Response

Dear Honorary Editors, Respected reviewers

Thank you very much for so kindly reviewing our article and making very valuable constructive comments.  

We have very carefully considered your comments and have done our best to amend and improve the paper according to your suggestions.

The changes made are summarised in the attached table and are highlighted yellow in the article.   

We are confident that the article following your reviewing and the subsequent amendments is significantly improved.

We are very grateful for the help and support provided and hope our amendments meet your expectations.

Best wishes

Professor Reza Saatchi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, authors  describes the development of the monitor’s  hardware, software, and evaluation using a prototype new device to monitor breathing in children diagnosed with central sleep apnoea (CSA).

In general, the paper's  technical contributions are of interest for large community. The  organization structure are also in good shape.  The paper presentation style is also acceptable.

Some  minor comments:

- Many paragraphs with single sentences. These should be fixed.

- On page 8 line 253, not sure MATLAB instruction is suitable in the main part. "The Matlab© instruction used for this purpose was (the function has some other input  thar??? were not needed in this study):" Better to describe it in words and explain by giving the definition of function.

- It is not clear how relevant are results in terms of statistical significance since the  duration of the recording was about two minutes. More discussions are needed along those lines

- Figures qualities could be improved further

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English level is ok.

Author Response

Dear Honorary Editors, Respected reviewers

Thank you very much for so kindly reviewing our article and making very valuable constructive comments.  

We have very carefully considered your comments and have done our best to amend and improve the paper according to your suggestions.

The changes made are summarised in the attached table and are highlighted yellow in the article.   

We are confident that the article following your reviewing and the subsequent amendments is significantly improved.

We are very grateful for the help and support provided and hope our amendments meet your expectations.

Best wishes

Professor Reza Saatchi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf