Next Article in Journal
Cerebral White Matter Lesions on Diffusion-Weighted Images and Delayed Neurological Sequelae after Carbon Monoxide Poisoning: A Prospective Observational Study
Next Article in Special Issue
New Frontiers and Old Challenges: How to Manage Incidental Findings When Forensic Diagnosis Goes Beyond
Previous Article in Journal
Value of Shape and Texture Features from 18F-FDG PET/CT to Discriminate between Benign and Malignant Solitary Pulmonary Nodules: An Experimental Evaluation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Current Methods for Body Fluid Identification Related to Sexual Crime: Focusing on Saliva, Semen, and Vaginal Fluid
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 10
Issue 9
10.3390/diagnostics10090697
Review Report
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Both Autopsy and Computed Tomography Are Necessary for Accurately Detecting Rib Fractures Due to Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Diagnostics 2020, 10(9), 697; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10090697
by Kunio Hamanaka 1,2,*, Kei Nishiyama 2, Mami Nakamura 1, Marin Takaso 1 and Masahito Hitosugi 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Diagnostics 2020, 10(9), 697; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10090697
Submission received: 22 August 2020 / Revised: 11 September 2020 / Accepted: 14 September 2020 / Published: 15 September 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Progress in the Forensic Diagnosis)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper aimed to evaluate and compare the characteristics of autopsy and PMCT in detecting CPR-related rib fractures, by analyzing data of patients who underwent these procedures.
The idea is interesting and the work is done with correct methodology.
I have only minor observations to complete the paper.
1. Page 2, line 61, correct: "studies, 10,11 and grouped into four locations as follows: parasternal, anterolateral, posterolateral ...".
2. When the authors show the schematic images of the PMCT fractures (Figure 1) they should then add, in the appropriate paragraph, a photo consisting of 4 images that allow to compare the fractures at the autopsy table. It is particularly important to show Buckle fractures.
3. Indeed, as the authors point out, an important limitation of the paper is the fact that the PMCT findings were retrospectively interpreted by only one radiologist, so inter-observer variation could not be calculated. So, I wonder: have the authors noticed any diagnostic excesses and / or differences among individual radiologists in diagnosing the type and location of fractures? This point could be interesting to bring out difficulties with PMCT by less experienced radiologists.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present a comparison study between PMCT and autopsy: the ribs fractures post resuscitation are the object of the research. The study is well done and statistical calculation are correct. The results are similar to those of other similar studies (correctly cited in the references). The complementarity of PMCT and autopsy should be more emphasized: in fact, in these studies, the quality of the autopsy is always a topic that has not objective tools of analysis.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop