Calcium Pyrophosphate and Basic Calcium Phosphate Deposition Diseases: The Year in Review 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer comments

Journal gout, urate, and crystal deposition disease

Tille CPP and BCP Crystal Arthritis: The Year in Review

This topic is one of the important issues in rheumatology…however, the manuscript needs modifications.

Comments

2..it is not preferred to include abbreviations in the manuscript

8.. Therefore, there is much…. English editing and grammar revision are mandatory in the whole manuscript.

8… CPP or BCP…. there is a need to adjust the abbreviations…...the meaning should be mentioned at the first appearance of the abbreviation and then abbreviation used later.

23…. A recent paper investigated…the abstract usually includes a summary to the content of the manuscript with no reference to other studies.

29.. calcium-crystal deposition diseases…...the dealing with abbreviations is not appropriate.

Introduction ...the research gap and the aim of this reviewer article should be determined.

47.. disease broadly defined…grammar revision is required in the whole manuscript.

51.. value of 81%. 1200..it is not applicable to start a sentence with a number

46…55...no references were added

The writing is to some extent difficult to understand.

62.. grammar revision again

Imaging ..it will be better to add images illustrating the imaging signs of these disease

Orthopedics…. This is not appropriate. the authors can use a different one illustrating their idea.

145-156...about 10 lines to explain one study. This is too much.

158..it will be better to add clinical manifestations before the investigations

 

 

Author Response

I am grateful to reviewer 1 for taking the time to review this manuscript. It has been extensively revised and hope that it will now be acceptable for publication. I will address each comment below as they arise.

 

 

This topic is one of the important issues in rheumatology…however, the manuscript needs modifications. I agree with this.

 

 

Comments

2..it is not preferred to include abbreviations in the manuscript. I have defined all abbreviations in the manuscript

8.. Therefore, there is much…. English editing and grammar revision are mandatory in the whole manuscript.  I have rewritten the manuscript and believe it has been substantially improved ( abstract is lines 6-24)

8… CPP or BCP…. there is a need to adjust the abbreviations…...the meaning should be mentioned at the first appearance of the abbreviation and then abbreviation used later. This has been done

23…. A recent paper investigated…the abstract usually includes a summary to the content of the manuscript with no reference to other studies. This statement has been removed and the abstract re-written as a summary of the manuscript

29.. calcium-crystal deposition diseases…...the dealing with abbreviations is not appropriate. This this been addressed and rectified throughout

Introduction ...the research gap and the aim of this reviewer article should be determined. This article was invited and my instructions were to base it on the Year in Review talk I gave at the G-CAN meeting in 2022. This has been specified in the introduction at lines 34-36

47.. disease broadly defined…grammar revision is required in the whole manuscript. This statement has been removed and the whole manuscript extensively revised

51.. value of 81%. 1200..it is not applicable to start a sentence with a number This has been rectified at line 60

46…55...no references were added I have added references 2,3,4,5,6, and 7 and they can be found between 397 and 410

The writing is to some extent difficult to understand. I hope in revision that it will be easier to understand

62.. grammar revision again Done

Imaging ..it will be better to add images illustrating the imaging signs of these disease While I agree, the issue of copyright of images would likely delay processing of this manuscript. Accordingly, I have not pursued this. However, references are given and papers easily accessible.

Orthopedics…. This is not appropriate. the authors can use a different one illustrating their idea.I have changed the title to ‘Surgical management of patients with CPPD’ Line 202

145-156...about 10 lines to explain one study. This is too much. I have shortened this as much as I can while trying to avoid loss of meaning (135-150)

158..it will be better to add clinical manifestations before the investigations I have done this as seen on line 93

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript authors aim to review the latest scientific evidence on the CPP and BCP crystal induced arthritis. The paper might be interesting but requires extensive syntax, grammar and English editing.

Major comments

   1.      Often sentences should be constructed better. For example, authors often refer to a study with “this study” (e.g. lines 193, 208) even if the study has never been described before. Both English and sentence construction should be reviewed throughout the manuscript.

   2.      All paragraphs appear completely unrelated to each other. Each paragraph should be better contextualized with an introductory sentence.

   3.      The authors do not describe the purpose of the manuscript. This needs to be clarified

   4.      The authors have to define which manuscripts they consider in this review. In particular I assume they consider published manuscripts in one year. Whether this is correct it has to be specified. Which year was considered? This has to be specified in the title and in the text. The type of review should also be specified

  5.      The paragraph entitled "Epidemiology" seems to me to describe more comorbidity studies than epidemiological studies. The paragraph title has to be changed.

  6.      Studies regarding some comorbidities and therapeutic treatments are missing in the manuscript.

   7.      Line 65: punctuation has to be revised.

   8.      What do "CR" and "PLM" refer to?

  9.      Lines 75-76, 108-110,123-125, 130-131: these sentences have to be rephrased

  10.   The paper considered from line 96 to line 103 has to be better described to explain the method used.

  11.   The part about BCP crystals has to be divided into paragraphs

  12.   Line 217, what does “entity” mean? The sentence has to be rephrased

  13.   The discussion looks like a summary of the manuscript. If the paper is a narrative review the discussion should be eliminated, if the paper is a scoping review the discussion should contain comments evaluating the volume, nature, characteristics, type of evidence available, key concepts and gaps in the topic covered.

  14.   I would move the paragraph "Future directions" before the conclusions.

Author Response

I am grateful to reviewer 2 for taking the time to review this manuscript. It has been extensively revised and hope that it will now be acceptable for publication. I will address each comment below as they arise.

In this manuscript authors aim to review the latest scientific evidence on the CPP and BCP crystal induced arthritis. The paper might be interesting but requires extensive syntax, grammar and English editing. I agree and have rewritten the manuscript

Major comments

1. Often sentences should be constructed better. For example, authors often refer to a study with “this study” (e.g. lines 193, 208) even if the study has never been described before. Both English and sentence construction should be reviewed throughout the manuscript. This (line 193 in original manuscript) has been changed so that on line 269 (originally 193) it reads ‘Accordingly, a study was performed’ and this is preceded by contextualization  between lines 256-268. Similarly, original line 208 is now line 290 and reads ‘Accordingly, a study was undertaken’ and this statement is preceded by context on lines 284-290
2. All paragraphs appear completely unrelated to each other. Each paragraph should be better contextualized with an introductory sentence. This had been done throughout the revised manuscript
3. The authors do not describe the purpose of the manuscript. This needs to be clarified This article was invited and my instructions were to base it on the Year in Review talk I gave at the G-CAN meeting in 2022. This has now been specified in the introduction at lines 33-35

 

4. The authors have to define which manuscripts they consider in this review. In particular I assume they consider published manuscripts in one year. Whether this is correct it has to be specified. Which year was considered? This has to be specified in the title and in the text. The type of review should also be specified. As noted above, the manuscripts were published mainly in 2022 and I was invited to write a narrative review based on the Year in Review talk given at G-CAN. This time frame narrowed the scope of the review accordingly.
5. The paragraph entitled "Epidemiology" seems to me to describe more comorbidity studies than epidemiological studies. The paragraph title has to be changed. The title of this section has been altered to Epidemiology and co-morbidity
6. Studies regarding some comorbidities and therapeutic treatments are missing in the manuscript. Regretfully, there were no papers to highlight during the timeframe covered by the manuscript. I have added a potential therapy in relation to calcification in OA on lines 347-355.
7. Line 65: punctuation has to be revised. This has been done and changed to case:control
8. What do "CR" and "PLM" refer to? CR has been defined (line127) and refers to conventional radiology. PLM refers to polarized light microscopy and is now defined on line 105

 

9. these sentences have to be rephrased

 Lines 75-76, CT (DECT). ‘These definitions signal key elements that are considered specific to CPPD on CR, CT, and DECT, and can be applied in research studies and clinical practice’ rephrased to ‘These definitions itemize key elements that are considered specific to CPPD on CR, CT, and DECT, and can be applied both in research studies and clinical practice’ (Lines 130-2)

Lines 108-110, ‘Chronic CPP crystal inflammatory arthritis showed more US findings indicating synovial inflammation and CPP deposits than those with OA with CPPD’ has been rephrased to ‘Chronic CPP crystal inflammatory arthritis exhibited more US findings indicating synovial inflammation and more CPP deposits when compared with those with OA and CPPD’. (Lines 176-8)

Lines 123-125, ‘This study looked at extending the US assessment to other asymptomatic joints such as knee, MTP or wrist when other joints (e.g shoulder, elbow, hip and ankle) are involved’. Has been rephrased to ‘The authors then looked at extending the US assessment to asymptomatic joints such as knee, MTP or wrist when other joints (e.g shoulder, elbow, hip and ankle) are involved’ (Lines 195-7)

Lines 130-131: ‘It has previously been recommended not to perform unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in patients with CPPD’ has been rephrased to ‘It has previously been recommended that uni-compartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) should not be performed in patients with CPPD’ (Lines 204-5)

10. The paper considered from line 96 to line 103 has to be better described to explain the method used. This has been rewritten on lines 171- 181 and hopefully is more comprehensive
11. The part about BCP crystals has to be divided into paragraphs This has been done
12. Line 217, what does “entity” mean? The sentence has to be rephrased This has been done and now reads ‘A clinical condition’ on line 303
13. The discussion looks like a summary of the manuscript. If the paper is a narrative review the discussion should be eliminated, if the paper is a scoping review the discussion should contain comments evaluating the volume, nature, characteristics, type of evidence available, key concepts and gaps in the topic covered. Since this is a narrative review, the discussion had been removed.
14. I would move the paragraph "Future directions" before the conclusions. This has been done

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript improved 

Author Response

There are no specific suggestions from Reviewer 1 and I appreciate the comment that the manuscript has improved. I hope it can now be published.

Reviewer 2 Report

English language has to be improved.

The paragraph on BCP crystals should be divided into subparagraphs (with titles as for CPP crystals) as previously indicated.

Author Response

I have divided the BCP sections into 1) biological effects in vitro, 2) imaging, 3) cartilage calcification and OA and 4) therapeutic considerations.

In terms of improving English language, the text is constrained by the similarity report and therefore limits any further alteration.