Quantitative and Compositional MRI of the Articular Cartilage: A Narrative Review
, Umberto Viglino 3, Francesco Esposito 4, Aldo Rizzo 5, Carmelo Messina 1,6, Salvatore Gitto 1,6, Stefano Fusco 1,6, Francesca Serpi 1,6, Benedikt Kamp 7, Anja Müller-Lutz 7, Riccardo D’Ambrosi 1,6, Luca Maria Sconfienza 1,6 and Philipp Sewerin 8,9Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe introduction section warrants conciseness.
Clearly delineate the novelty of the review.
Was a systematic search strategy employed?
A table presentation would enhance the value.
Ensure each author fulfills all four criteria of ICMJE authorship.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing is required. Please refrain from informal statements eg. thanks to...
Author Response
Q: The introduction section warrants conciseness. Clearly delineate the novelty of the review.
A: The introduction has been divided from the rest of the main text and is quite short. We’ve just added the novelty of the review highlighting the effort to discuss the updated literature on compositional and quantitative MRI of the cartilage.
Q: Was a systematic search strategy employed?
A: No, it was not, but just a narrative review checking several articles written in English on the topic “MRI of the cartilage” retrieved from different databases (PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS) without limitations of year of publication.
Q: A table presentation would enhance the value.
A: we have resumed pros and cons of MRI sequences and techniques in table 1.
Q: Ensure each author fulfills all four criteria of ICMJE authorship.
A: we have added this point to the paragraph author contributions.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn my opinion, the criteria for reference selection should be explained.
Missing a figure with a resume of the sequences and techniques.
The figures are original from where, and should have the source.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish language suitable.
Author Response
Q: In my opinion, the criteria for reference selection should be explained.
A: It was not a systematic review, but just a narrative review checking several articles written in English on the topic “MRI of the cartilage” retrieved from different databases (PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS) without limitations of year of publication.
Q: Missing a figure with a resume of the sequences and techniques.
A: we have resumed pros and cons of MRI sequences and techniques in table 1.
Q: The figures are original from where, and should have the source.
A: The figures are original, all images were collected from our institutions, thus we do not need to report the source.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
The following instrumental review article merits publication; however, a grammar check and moderate language editing are required. The article could benefit from a basic introduction to help non-radiologist readers, such as orthopaedic surgeons or rehabilitation doctors, better understand the content.
The following minor points should be addressed:
- Lines 54-56: Consider adding a brief explanation for when to choose between PDw/Iw/T2W and when to apply fat suppression.
A: We have added an explanation of the differences between these sequences and the importance of fat suppression.
- Figure 1: Consider including an Iw representative image.
A: we have added a figure including fat sat PDw/Iw/T2W of patella-femoral joint of the same patient.
- Line 72: Provide the full name of WORMS.
A: done.
- Line 85: Verify the p-value (I did not check the original article as it could not be accessed without payment).
A: We have checked it.
- Line 86: Provide the full name of TSE and explain TSE in a way that non-radiologists can understand.
A: done.
- Line 101: Provide the full name of TRs and explain TRs in a way that non-radiologists can understand.
A: done.
- Line 116: Should be "longer acquisition time."
A: thanks for your suggestion.
- Lines 224-225: Summarise which scores are based on imaging and which are based on clinical correlation.
A: we have added a sentence to specify that these scores are imaging-based methods that are used to assess osteoarthritis stage on MRI.
- Line 272: "are than analyzed" should be "are then analyzed."
A: thanks for your suggestion.
- Lines 322-324: Please explain when to choose FSE, TSE, and balanced GRE in a way that nonradiologists can understand.
A: unfortunately, we have not understood this comment, we do not see any discussion about these sequences at lines 322-324.
- Line 326: Provide the full name of BSL.
A: done.
- Lines 332-333: Explain "magic angle effect" and "laminar appearance" in a way that non-radiologists can understand.
A: thanks for your suggestion, we have added this explanation in the paragraph “Conventional MRI” where magic angle effect has been mentioned first.
- Line 410: Explain what "T1gd" is in a way that non-radiologists can understand.
A: done.
- Line 488: Explain what "2D echo-planar readout (EPI)" is in a way that non-radiologists can
understand.
A: done.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle: Incorporating "Narrative Reviews" When Applicable
Introduction: Provide Contextual Rationale for the Review Based on Existing Knowledge. Introduction: Elucidate Unexplored Areas Within the Domain.
Introduction: Clearly State the Objectives of the Study.
Methodology: Define the Procedure for Literature Search, Including Criteria such as Years Considered, Study Designs, and Covered Databases.
Additionally, Consider Evaluating Your Narrative Review Using Established Checklists, Such as STROBE for Observational Studies.
Results: Include a Table Summarizing Key Papers Reviewed in the Literature.
Discussion: Address Limitations Identified and Propose Directions for Future Research.
Author Response
Title: Incorporating "Narrative Reviews" When Applicable
A: we have edited the text as suggested.
Introduction: Provide Contextual Rationale for the Review Based on Existing Knowledge. Introduction: Elucidate Unexplored Areas Within the Domain.
Introduction: Clearly State the Objectives of the Study.
A: we have added rationale and aim of the paper.
Methodology: Define the Procedure for Literature Search, Including Criteria such as Years Considered, Study Designs, and Covered Databases.
A: it was not a systematic review, but just a narrative review checking several articles written in English on the topic “MRI of the cartilage” retrieved from different databases (PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS) without limitations of year of publication.
Additionally, Consider Evaluating Your Narrative Review Using Established Checklists, Such as STROBE for Observational Studies.
A: we have not found any narrative review checklist specific for radiology articles, so we have used a checklist used for narrative reviews about other topics (find enclosed)
Results: Include a Table Summarizing Key Papers Reviewed in the Literature.
A: we have preferred to include a table with pros and cons of quantitative MR techniques discussed in the paper.
Discussion: Address Limitations Identified and Propose Directions for Future Research.
A: we have added this part at the end of the paragraph “3. Implementation and significance for clinical practice”
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper is a review on the different approaches to MRI for OA detection. It gives a holistic overview of the techniques and overall the review is structured very well.
Please find some comments bellow:
1. Figure 1, please add arrows to indicate the location of the patellar cartilage on the image, this will make figure 3 easier to understand when you’re talking about the scoring
2. Line 72 WORMS score, state what it stands for
3. Line 144-147 please give brief explanation on what SNR and contrast-to-noise is. Since you’re talking about segmentation further down the paragraph and most of the methods you’re mentioning are depend on both of these it’s important you explain what these are.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Line 396: please rewrite or add punctuation to the sentence
Line 604-606: please rewrite this sentence.
Author Response
This paper is a review on the different approaches to MRI for OA detection. It gives a holistic overview of the techniques and overall the review is structured very well.
Please find some comments bellow:
- Figure 1, please add arrows to indicate the location of the patellar cartilage on the image, this will make figure 3 easier to understand when you’re talking about the scoring
A: done.
- Line 72 WORMS score, state what it stands for
A: done.
- Line 144-147 please give brief explanation on what SNR and contrast-to-noise is. Since you’re talking about segmentation further down the paragraph and most of the methods you’re mentioning are depend on both of these it’s important you explain what these are.
A: done.
Line 396: please rewrite or add punctuation to the sentence
A: done.
Line 604-606: please rewrite this sentence.
A: done.
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for revision. No comments
