Proteomics for Early Detection of Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: Clinically Useful Urine Protein Biomarkers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This review article demonstrated investigative urine markers for detection of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. A biological marker for bladder cancer is an imperative tool in real world clinical setting, but there is no effective one for now. In order to overcome this situation, many researchers make an effort to detect better biomarker than urine cytology and cystoscopy. This review showed wide range of studies including basic and clinical researches, and future prospective. I hope break through study would be come out based on this review.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments and encouragements. 

We tried to our best to upgraded our article. 

Thank you again. 

Reviewer 2 Report

I found the manuscript very interesting and also the topic. I believe that it should be a bit better structured:

• I understand that this is a narrative review. However, the authors should at least give some info about the search performed and about the methods followed for this manuscript.
• Similarly, in the introduction I would better explain the aim of the study.
• I would implement the conclusions as a short discussion with a minimal summary of future perspectives and current use.
• Even if it’s a narrative review, this is a manuscript and therefore authors must declare the study limitations. These can be inserted in the conclusion sessioin.

Author Response

We really thank you for your comments. According to your advice, we added and revised our manuscript like below. 

• I understand that this is a narrative review. However, the authors should at least give some info about the search performed and about the methods followed for this manuscript.

Author's response) We added 2 paragraphs to introduce our used methods. 

 

• Similarly, in the introduction I would better explain the aim of the study.

Author's response) We added 1.1 paragraph to add the aim of the study.

 

• I would implement the conclusions as a short discussion with a minimal summary of future perspectives and current use. Even if it’s a narrative review, this is a manuscript and therefore authors must declare the study limitations. These can be inserted in the conclusion session.

Author's response) We totally agree with your opinion. Therefore we completely revised conclusion section according to your comments. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made the editings required.

I believe the quality has improved.