Next Article in Journal
Evolution of CRISPR/Cas Systems for Precise Genome Editing
Previous Article in Journal
Is Cell-Free DNA Testing in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Ready for Prime Time?
Previous Article in Special Issue
Gender-Specific Differences in Human Vertebral Bone Marrow Clot
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Retrospective Analysis of Bone Substitute Material for Traumatic Long Bone Fractures: Sex-Specific Outcomes

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24(18), 14232; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241814232
by Jonas Pawelke 1, Vithusha Vinayahalingam 1, Christian Heiss 1,2, Thaqif El Khassawna 1 and Gero Knapp 2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24(18), 14232; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241814232
Submission received: 29 July 2023 / Revised: 13 September 2023 / Accepted: 14 September 2023 / Published: 18 September 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The sentences at places look incomplete , for e.g. Line 15-16 , Please check everywhere in the manuscript 

2. Need of the study is unclear

3. Introduction need to be more focussed on the need of the study 

4. Objective should be crisp and clear. Reframe 

5. The numbers in the figure are unclear 

6. Table 1 suddenly pops up from no where 

7. Result comes first and then material and methods , why ?

8. Conclusion is too long , difficult to understand what authors actually are trying to portray 

1. The sentences at places look incomplete , for e.g. Line 15-16 , Please check everywhere in the manuscript 

 

Author Response

The authors apologize for the elongated review time. 
We really thank you for your work. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript contained numerous English errors.

1.     “Compared with compared with”

2.      “However, female patients showed an inferior boney bridging was in.”  please check

3.       “ male rates”, should be male rats

4.       This is an observational study not a trial.

5.       2. Results should be followed by 2.1 2.2, et al

6.       “the sex 184 (53.33%) patients were female”  please revise

7.       “There was no significance between the groups of geriatric patients in the female cohort (p=1.0) and in the male cohort (p=0.45)” what do you mean no significance?

8.       Regarding Table 3 and Table 5, it's important to provide what measurements were compared. Simply reporting p-values without context can be confusing.

Too many English errors

Author Response

The authors apologize for the elongated review time. 
We really thank you for your work. 

Please look attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Ok, the manuscript has improved a lot.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

the authors thank you for your work and the proofreading. 

Sincerely, 

the authors

Back to TopTop