Power Output of Two Semiconductor Lasers: An Observational Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This observational study is well thought out and adequately performed. I would like to see some revisions in Table 2 to add clarity. Since the title says 'actual power,' the entries for pulse energy and especially fluence are not appropriate. Rather, the average power row is sufficient. If the author chooses, there could be an entry for power density.

Likewise in the discussion section, lines 211-218, there's numerical values for energy density (curiously not termed fluence) would be better stated as power density to avoid confusion. Also, there's no similar discussion of those calculations for the 810nm laser, even though the values would be lower. 

Furthermore, the conclusion would be more meaningful if there was a statement about the clinician's need to purchase a power meter, rather than hope the manufacturers would offer a calibration device.  Those of us who already have a good working laser shouldn't have to purchase a new laser--it would be better to purchase a power meter.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this study, the power output of different lasers is measured, in continuous and pulsed mode, and data are compared with those declared by the Manufactures.

Potentially the manuscript could be also interesting, but I think that in order to verify the hypothesis of the study, it is not enough to perform 10 different measurements for each laser. This could represent a bias...the difference in the output measured by the authors could be a consequence of a malfunction of the single device, and not of all devices of the same series and type.

I suggest to the authors compare different lasers of the same type, and then calculate the average power output.

The introduction could be improved by describing the different applications of the different types of lasers.

Materials and methods:

-The tips were new and were substituted after 10 measurements; what about the lasers? Did they were new? 

-Before the measurements, the tips were activated?

-In what cases do you think that the difference in the power output found could be relevant? Clinically I do not think there are great differences by using 3.5 or 4 W.

 

There are some English errors that should be corrected.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, do you think that the discrepancy found is clinically relevant?

Please emphasize this concept.

Why clinicians should provide a power meter if the deviations are not clinically relevant? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx