Next Article in Journal
Quantification of Pre-Season and In-Season Training Intensity across an Entire Competitive Season of Asian Professional Soccer Players
Previous Article in Journal
Comparative Effects of Neuromuscular- and Strength-Training Protocols on Pathomechanical, Sensory-Perceptual, and Motor-Behavioral Impairments in Patients with Chronic Ankle Instability: Randomized Controlled Trial
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Potential Maneuvers for Providing Optimal Tidal Volume Using the One-Handed EC Technique

Healthcare 2022, 10(8), 1365; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10081365
by Dongchoon Uhm 1 and Ajung Kim 2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Healthcare 2022, 10(8), 1365; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10081365
Submission received: 16 June 2022 / Revised: 19 July 2022 / Accepted: 20 July 2022 / Published: 23 July 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript is developed in the framework of bag-valve-masks (BVM), a device that is commonly used in patients with respiratory failure. The adequate BVM ventilation is highly related with survival rates, a reason for maintaining optimal ventilation. A parameter which is related with the quality of respiration is the tidal volume. In this paper, the authors performed a study which was aimed to identify which factors influence the tidal volume.

After a detailed review, I consider that the topic might result of interest. However, I have some doubts and questions. For that reason I recommend to perform a Major Revision.

Please see my comments in the attached pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.
Thank you for your meticulous review.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The aim of the article is to determine the most suitable location of the hand between the mask and face for providing optimal Vt while using BVM ventilation with the one-handed EC technique. The investigation is very important for patients with lung diseases.

The article is written clearly. The only my remark is related to the lack of causality analysis. I suggest to analyze the causes of the results more in detail.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.
Thank you for your meticulous review.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have replied to all my questions.

I think that it can be now considered for publication.

Back to TopTop