Myocarditis Following COVID-19 Vaccination: Cardiac Imaging Findings in 118 Studies
, Fereshteh Yazdanpanah 3, Maryam Emad 4, Azadeh Hajati 4, Seyed Faraz Nejati 4, Faranak Ebrahimian Sadabad 4, Tamta Azrumelashvili 5, Malkhaz Mizandari 5,* and Steven S. Raman 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Congratulations to the authors for their work.
There are some minor issues that could be addressed:
In table 1 TABLE 1. Characteristics of Cases with Myocarditis Following COVID-19 Vaccination (n = 532) the data for age range/age groups seems to be missing. Also , the numbers in Vaccine status part seems discordant (could you please check them again).
Author Response
Thank you for the comment. It was corrected. Regarding the age group, we completely agree that subgrouping the age range is better for understanding the age-group risk factor, but as we have included a massive number of studies, and each study, reports a different age range or group, we preferred to report the overall age range for the systematic review, and cannot categorize age into different sub-groups.
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall quality of current paper is good.
In any case, before considering potential acceptance by Editors I think authors should be little modified it.
About English language: minor revisions are needed.
Moreover, at lines 27-29 please check for paragraph alignment; likewise line 178.
Finally, I'd like to suggest some futher articles for reading and/or adding to references. They are intersting also for a little enlarging of the discussion.
Rev Med Virol. 2021: e2318. doi: 10.1002/rmv.2318.
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2021: jeab230. doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jeab230.
BEST REGARDS.
Author Response
Thank you for the comment. It was revised based on your comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In the manuscript, the authors aimed to report novel imaging findings in patients that developed myocarditis after Covid-19 vaccination.
The paper is interesting but I would like to suggest a few modifications before being published. Comments:
(1) Line 234-237, the sentence should be rephrased
(2) Line 198-204: when you give proportion please use the same pattern. For example line 199, give the % of the 228 normal cases; pericardial effusion (20/388, … %), and so on
(3) Line 179, “imaging findings were reported by”, to be rephrased: for example, were reported using different imaging methods
(4) Line 71, Two radiologists independently extracted data… “blinded radiologist”
(5) In the first box of the PRISMA flowchart please also indicate the total number of articles
(6) Please check for layout issues and extra-space in the manuscript. For example line 44, a comma is missing; in line 46 do not repeat review in the same sentence
Author Response
Thank you for the comment. It was revised based on your comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
