Current Advancements in Drone Technology for Medical Sample Transportation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigates the current advancements in drone technology. The research includes a review of recent case studies from various regions, illustrating the practical applications and benefits of drones in healthcare. Thanks for good review article.

-Headings between 2 and 7 can be given in the introduction. It can also be like this, it can be more organized and compact if given under the introduction. But it's fine the way it is.

-How long can drones stay in the air and how much payload can they carry? The section on this is missing, some more literature on this section can be added.

- This article is enough for a review article. Thanks for this useful study.

Author Response

This study investigates the current advancements in drone technology. The research includes a review of recent case studies from various regions, illustrating the practical applications and benefits of drones in healthcare. Thanks for good review article.

 

-Headings between 2 and 7 can be given in the introduction. It can also be like this, it can be more organized and compact if given under the introduction. But it's fine the way it is.

 

Answer: In response to your suggestion regarding the section headings between 2 and 7, I appreciate the thoughtful input. I understand the potential benefits of organizing these sections under the introduction to provide a more compact and streamlined presentation. However, I believe that keeping them as separate sections allows for a more in-depth exploration of each topic, ensuring that each advancement in drone technology is thoroughly discussed. That said, I will certainly consider reorganizing the structure in future iterations to ensure an even more cohesive flow. Once again, thank you for your valuable insight!

 

-How long can drones stay in the air and how much payload can they carry? The section on this is missing, some more literature on this section can be added.

 

Answer: Thank you very much for your helpful comment and suggestion regarding the inclusion of information on drone flight time and payload capacity. We have now addressed this by adding Section 2.5: Drone Flight Time and Payload Capacity, which discusses the variability in drone flight times and payloads, emphasizing how these factors are influenced by the weight of the cargo. We believe this addition provides a more comprehensive overview of the operational capabilities of drones in medical logistics. Thank you again for your valuable feedback!

 

- This article is enough for a review article. Thanks for this useful study.

 

Answer: Thank you very much for your kind words and positive feedback! We truly appreciate your thoughtful comments and are glad to hear that you found the article useful. Your support and encouragement are greatly appreciated.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1- Provide more concrete examples to illustrate the challenges faced by traditional transportation methods.

2- Conduct a more detailed comparative analysis between drone-based transportation and traditional methods to highlight the benefits of drones.

3- Analyze the long-term costs of drone-based transportation,

4- Incorporate specific case studies where advanced technology has played a crucial role in ensuring reliability and security.

5- Explore the potential of emerging technologies (e.blockchain, artificial intelligence) to address regulatory and legal challenges.   6- Conduct a comparative analysis of the accessibility benefits of drone-based transportation versus traditional methods.   7- Incorporate specific case studies where drones have been successfully integrated into healthcare systems to illustrate the benefits.   8- Conduct a comparative analysis of the different case studies to identify common themes,   9- Conduct a quantitative analysis to assess the overall impact of drone-based medical sample transportation on healthcare delivery.   10- What is the long-term technological roadmap for drone-based medical sample transportation, and what are the key milestones and challenges to be addressed?   11- What are the potential economic impacts of the widespread adoption of drone-based medical sample transportation, including job creation, cost savings, and improved healthcare access?   12- How can the environmental impact of drone-based medical sample transportation be minimized, and what sustainable practices can be adopted?   13- How can drone-based medical sample transportation be made sustainable and scalable in the long term?   14- How can emerging technologies (e.g., autonomous vehicles, robotic delivery systems) be integrated with drone-based medical sample transportation to further enhance efficiency and effectiveness?

Author Response

1- Provide more concrete examples to illustrate the challenges faced by traditional transportation methods.

 

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. The manuscript already includes detailed examples of the challenges faced by traditional transportation methods in Section 2: Speed and Efficiency, particularly in Subsections 2.1 and 2.2. We highlight challenges such as traffic congestion, geographical barriers, and logistical delays, supported by case studies (e.g., Amukele et al., 2016; Haidari et al., 2016). These examples help clarify the limitations of ground transportation, particularly in urban and rural regions.

 

2- Conduct a more detailed comparative analysis between drone-based transportation and traditional methods to highlight the benefits of drones.

 

Answer: We appreciate your feedback. The manuscript provides a detailed comparative analysis in Section 3: Cost-Effectiveness, with a comparison of time and cost between drones and traditional ground transportation in Table 2. We discuss significant time savings and operational benefits in both urban and rural environments, along with financial comparisons between different methods of transportation.

 

3- Analyze the long-term costs of drone-based transportation,

 

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion to include a quantitative analysis. In response, we have added Subsection 3.6: Quantitative Impact on Healthcare Delivery, providing specific data on the time and cost reductions from drone use. This includes a 63% reduction in urban delivery times, a 50% reduction in rural areas, and 50% cost savings per delivery. These metrics highlight the significant improvements in healthcare efficiency and patient outcomes due to drone-based transportation.

We appreciate your feedback, which has helped enhance the paper with more concrete data.

 

 

4- Incorporate specific case studies where advanced technology has played a crucial role in ensuring reliability and security.

 

Answer: Thank you for this suggestion. The manuscript already addresses the role of advanced technology in ensuring reliability and security in Section 4: Reliability and Security. We discuss AI-powered navigation, real-time monitoring, and secure payload systems, with examples of tamper-evident technology and blockchain for tracking the integrity of medical samples. These examples illustrate the role of advanced technology in improving the security of drone-based transportation.

 

5- Explore the potential of emerging technologies (e.blockchain, artificial intelligence) to address regulatory and legal challenges.

 

Answer: We agree that emerging technologies play an important role in addressing regulatory and legal challenges. This is already discussed in Section 5: Challenges and Future Directions, where we explore the potential of blockchain for secure tracking and AI for autonomous navigation in complex environments. We also discuss the role these technologies can play in improving regulatory compliance and managing airspace effectively.

 

6- Conduct a comparative analysis of the accessibility benefits of drone-based transportation versus traditional methods.

 

Answer: Thank you for your comment. The manuscript covers this analysis in Section 6: Accessibility, where we compare drones and traditional transportation methods, focusing on how drones overcome geographic barriers and improve access to underserved areas. The case studies of Zipline in Rwanda and other remote regions provide concrete examples of how drones enhance accessibility.

 

7- Incorporate specific case studies where drones have been successfully integrated into healthcare systems to illustrate the benefits.  

 

Answer: The manuscript already includes several detailed case studies in Section 8: Case Studies. We discuss successful integrations of drones into healthcare systems, such as Zipline in Rwanda, Matternet in Switzerland, and Swoop Aero in Africa. These case studies highlight the benefits of drones in improving healthcare logistics and medical sample transportation.

 

8- Conduct a comparative analysis of the different case studies to identify common themes,  

 

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion to conduct a comparative analysis of the different case studies. In response, we have added Subsection 8.6: Comparative Analysis of Case Studies: Identifying Common Themes, which highlights consistent benefits such as speed, accessibility, and cost-effectiveness across the case studies of Zipline, Matternet, Swoop Aero, and Wingcopter. Additionally, we identify shared challenges related to technological limitations, regulatory hurdles, and scalability. This comparative analysis strengthens the discussion by drawing common conclusions from diverse case studies.

We appreciate your feedback, which has helped improve the structure and depth of the case study analysis.

 

9- Conduct a quantitative analysis to assess the overall impact of drone-based medical sample transportation on healthcare delivery.  

 

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion to include a quantitative analysis of the impact of drone-based medical sample transportation on healthcare delivery. In response, we have added Subsection 3.7: Quantitative Impact on Healthcare Delivery Outcomes, which highlights specific improvements, including reductions in transportation times by 50-60%, a 20-30% increase in delivery frequency, and significant cost savings of up to 50%. These metrics demonstrate how drones have enhanced healthcare efficiency, particularly in emergency situations and underserved regions.

We appreciate your feedback, which has strengthened the quantitative aspect of the manuscript.

 

 

10- What is the long-term technological roadmap for drone-based medical sample transportation, and what are the key milestones and challenges to be addressed?  

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion regarding the long-term technological roadmap for drone-based medical sample transportation. In response, we have revised Section 10: Future Directions to highlight key milestones and challenges, such as improvements in battery technology, the implementation of AI-driven autonomous navigation systems, regulatory advancements for beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) flights, and the development of Unmanned Traffic Management (UTM) systems. Additionally, we discuss the importance of sustainability and scalability, focusing on environmentally friendly technologies and integrating drones with existing healthcare logistics.

 

11- What are the potential economic impacts of the widespread adoption of drone-based medical sample transportation, including job creation, cost savings, and improved healthcare access?  

 

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion regarding the economic impacts of widespread drone adoption. We have revised Section 3: Cost-Effectiveness to include a discussion on the broader economic benefits, such as job creation in drone operation, maintenance, and logistics, as well as fostering innovation in related industries. Additionally, we highlight how improved healthcare access, especially in underserved regions, can reduce long-term healthcare costs by providing faster and more reliable medical deliveries. These factors collectively contribute to significant economic growth and efficiency improvements in healthcare systems.

 

12- How can the environmental impact of drone-based medical sample transportation be minimized, and what sustainable practices can be adopted?  

 

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion to incorporate sustainability into the future of drone-based medical transportation. In response, we have revised Section 10: Future Directions to include key sustainability considerations, such as the development of electric-powered drones, AI-driven route optimization, the use of recyclable materials, and the establishment of battery recycling programs. These efforts will minimize the environmental impact while ensuring the scalability of drone operations. The section also retains the discussion on long-term technological advancements, including improvements in battery technology, autonomous navigation, and regulatory frameworks.

 

13- How can drone-based medical sample transportation be made sustainable and scalable in the long term?  

 

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion to address how drone-based medical sample transportation can be made sustainable and scalable in the long term. This has been covered in Section 10: Future Directions, where we discuss the development of electric-powered drones, AI-driven route optimization, recyclable materials, and battery recycling programs to ensure sustainability. Additionally, we explore scalability through improvements in battery technology, charging infrastructure, and the integration of drones with hospital information systems and supply chain management technologies. These efforts will ensure that drone-based transportation can expand while maintaining a minimal environmental impact.

 

14- How can emerging technologies (e.g., autonomous vehicles, robotic delivery systems) be integrated with drone-based medical sample transportation to further enhance efficiency and effectiveness?

 

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion to explore the integration of emerging technologies, such as autonomous vehicles and robotic delivery systems, with drone-based medical sample transportation. In response, we have expanded Section 10: Future Directions to discuss how combining drones with autonomous ground vehicles and robotic systems can create a multi-modal logistics network. This integration will allow drones to handle long-distance transportation, while autonomous vehicles or robots manage the "last mile" of deliveries within healthcare facilities. Additionally, we highlight the role of AI-powered coordination systems to dynamically allocate tasks and optimize logistics, further enhancing efficiency and effectiveness in healthcare transportation.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work presents a review of drone-based techniques, which might benefit medical sample transportation. Several closely related works have reviewed and its overall quality is good. Some concerns are a few of latest drone-related works are overlooked: (1) One very important UAV benchmark is missing: The unmanned aerial vehicle benchmark: Object detection and tracking (2) One latest advancement using language to control UAVs: Aerialvln: Vision-and-language navigation for uavs. These should be well discussed in the paper. 

Author Response

This work presents a review of drone-based techniques, which might benefit medical sample transportation. Several closely related works have reviewed and its overall quality is good. Some concerns are a few of latest drone-related works are overlooked:

 

(1) One very important UAV benchmark is missing: The unmanned aerial vehicle benchmark: Object detection and tracking

 

Answer: Thank you for highlighting the missing reference to "The Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Benchmark: Object Detection and Tracking." While our review focuses on drones in medical logistics, we agree that object detection and tracking are vital for enhancing UAV navigation, safety, and reliability in complex environments. These capabilities are essential for ensuring timely and accurate medical deliveries.

We have updated Section 4.1: Advanced Navigation Systems to briefly mention this benchmark, as it directly improves UAV performance in challenging settings, supporting their use in healthcare logistics.

Thanks again for bringing this to our attention. Let me know when you'd like to address the second point.

 

(2) One latest advancement using language to control UAVs: Aerialvln: Vision-and-language navigation for uavs. These should be well discussed in the paper. 

 

Answer: Thank you for your valuable feedback and for highlighting the advancement in Vision-and-Language Navigation (AerialVLN) for UAVs. In response, we have added Section 4.5: Vision-and-Language Navigation for UAVs to discuss how this technology can enhance drone operations in medical logistics by enabling navigation through natural language commands. This addition improves the paper by incorporating the latest developments in UAV control, making drone operations more flexible and efficient in healthcare.

We appreciate your suggestion and contribution to strengthening the review!

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aims to examine how drone technology can enhance the efficiency and reliability of medical sample transportation, particularly in challenging urban and remote regions. The subject of the study is interesting and in line with the aims and scope of the Journal. However, the paper is not well-structured and well-written. It lacks important elements of a scientific paper and critical analysis. More detailed comments are provided below.

1.     The paper is not well-structured. It is too partitioned and doesn’t follow the common structure of the scientific paper (there is no clear background, methodology, results, discussion, etc.).

2.     The abstract lacks the main results, novelty, and contributions. The authors mention, "The results demonstrate a substantial reduction in transportation time and costs, along with improved accessibility to healthcare services in underserved areas.”. However, these are not the results of their study, these are the results of other studies that they overviewed. But what are the results of this study and this literature review paper?

3.     The Introduction is not well-written. It is too scarce and lacks a proper background of the study, motivation, research questions, aim of the study, main results, contributions, novelty, and a short overview of the remainder of the paper.

4.     The authors point out that the methodology is a “comprehensive review of recent case studies”. However, most of the cited studies don’t provide case studies, nor the review is comprehensive since the authors merely listed and quoted the studies dealing with some aspect of the studied problem without any critical discussion or deeper analysis.

5.     The main problem with this study is that it doesn’t provide any novelty or contribution. The authors didn’t even identify the research gaps according to the reviewed literature. They simply arranged some studies by themes and presented the main findings of these studies. This is hardly a significant scientific contribution.

6.     The paper does not have a discussion. The authors did not discuss the results of their study or how the results can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies. Discussion should clearly and concisely explain the significance of the obtained results to demonstrate the actual contribution of the article to this field of research when compared with the existing and studied literature.

7.     The authors should discuss the limitations of the study.

8.     The authors should discuss the theoretical and practical (managerial implications of their study). Who and for what can use the results of their study?

9.     There are some technical issues:

a)     There should be at least a couple of sentences between the levels of different levels (e.g. between heading 5 and sub-heading 5.1).

b)    References in the reference list are not formatted according to the Instructions for authors (provided template).

c)     Some references are not complete. They are missing important information such as volume, issues, or page numbers.

 

d)    Acronyms/Abbreviations/Initialisms should be defined the first time they appear in the paper. For example, the abbreviation “AI” is not defined in the abstract, and “GPS” is not defined in the main text. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is acceptable. Only minor issues are identified.

Author Response

This study aims to examine how drone technology can enhance the efficiency and reliability of medical sample transportation, particularly in challenging urban and remote regions. The subject of the study is interesting and in line with the aims and scope of the Journal. However, the paper is not well-structured and well-written. It lacks important elements of a scientific paper and critical analysis. More detailed comments are provided below.

 

1. The paper is not well-structured. It is too partitioned and doesn’t follow the common structure of the scientific paper (there is no clear background, methodology, results, discussion, etc.).

 

Answer: Thank you for your feedback regarding the structure of the paper. We would like to clarify that this is a review paper, and as such, it does not follow the traditional structure of original research papers (i.e., background, methodology, results, discussion). Instead, the paper is organized thematically to synthesize existing studies on drone-based medical sample transportation, providing a comprehensive overview of the key advancements, challenges, and case studies in this area.

The structure is intended to reflect the narrative nature of a review article, offering insights into current technological trends, regulatory hurdles, and future directions. We have taken care to present a coherent discussion on how these elements interact to enhance the efficiency and reliability of medical sample transportation. Nonetheless, we will ensure that the flow between sections is clear and logical to further improve the readability of the paper.

 

2. The abstract lacks the main results, novelty, and contributions. The authors mention, "The results demonstrate a substantial reduction in transportation time and costs, along with improved accessibility to healthcare services in underserved areas.”. However, these are not the results of their study, these are the results of other studies that they overviewed. But what are the results of this study and this literature review paper?

 

Answer: Thank you for your feedback regarding the abstract. We understand the confusion, and we would like to clarify that this paper is a narrative review, not an original research article. The results mentioned in the abstract refer to findings from the existing literature and case studies reviewed in the paper, not original data or experiments conducted by the authors. We have revised the abstract to clearly indicate that the study synthesizes findings from various sources to evaluate the impact of drone technology on healthcare logistics, with no new experimental results generated by the authors.

 

3. The Introduction is not well-written. It is too scarce and lacks a proper background of the study, motivation, research questions, aim of the study, main results, contributions, novelty, and a short overview of the remainder of the paper.

 

Answer: Thank you for your feedback regarding the introduction. We have expanded the Introduction to provide a more comprehensive background on the importance of medical sample transportation and the limitations of traditional ground-based methods. The revised introduction now clearly outlines the motivation behind the study, the research aim, and the contributions of this narrative review. Additionally, we have included relevant citations to demonstrate how drone technology, through advancements like AI-powered navigation and real-time monitoring, is emerging as a solution to logistical challenges in healthcare. We believe these changes address the concerns regarding the introduction and better frame the context and purpose of the review.

 

4. The authors point out that the methodology is a “comprehensive review of recent case studies”. However, most of the cited studies don’t provide case studies, nor the review is comprehensive since the authors merely listed and quoted the studies dealing with some aspect of the studied problem without any critical discussion or deeper analysis.

 

Answer: Thank you for your feedback regarding the methodology section. To clarify and enhance the rigor of the review, we have now included a dedicated Methodology section that outlines the process we used to select and analyze the literature. The revised section explains our systematic approach to literature search and selection, including the use of specific keywords and databases. It also details how we categorized the studies into thematic areas, such as technological advancements, regulatory challenges, and case studies, and provides a critical analysis of the findings from these studies. We believe this addition addresses your concerns by providing a clearer understanding of the narrative review process and demonstrating the comprehensive nature of the review.

 

5. The main problem with this study is that it doesn’t provide any novelty or contribution. The authors didn’t even identify the research gaps according to the reviewed literature. They simply arranged some studies by themes and presented the main findings of these studies. This is hardly a significant scientific contribution.

 

Answer: Thank you for your feedback regarding the novelty and contribution of the paper. We would like to clarify that the primary contribution of this narrative review lies in its critical evaluation of current advancements in drone technology, as well as its identification of key challenges, regulatory hurdles, and future directions for drone-based medical logistics.

The paper does not simply arrange studies but offers a synthesized analysis of how drones are being utilized in real-world healthcare settings, with particular attention to case studies that demonstrate the benefits of these technologies in reducing transportation times and improving accessibility in underserved areas. In addition, we identify research gaps—such as the need for more comprehensive regulatory frameworks and a clearer understanding of long-term scalability—based on the findings from the reviewed literature.

By critically reflecting on the technological, regulatory, and operational challenges faced by drone-based medical logistics, the review provides valuable insights for future research and practical applications, contributing to the broader discourse on how drones can be integrated into healthcare delivery systems.

 

6. The paper does not have a discussion. The authors did not discuss the results of their study or how the results can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies. Discussion should clearly and concisely explain the significance of the obtained results to demonstrate the actual contribution of the article to this field of research when compared with the existing and studied literature.

 

Answer: Thank you for your feedback regarding the need for a dedicated discussion section. We have now incorporated a Discussion section in the paper, where we compare the findings from the case studies, highlight key challenges such as regulatory hurdles, scalability, and sample integrity, and suggest areas for future research, including the integration of drones with healthcare systems and the need for scalable drone operations. Additionally, we have included a critical analysis of how the reviewed literature contributes to the field of medical logistics, and we discuss the implications of these findings for the future of healthcare delivery.

We believe this addition provides a deeper analysis of the results and addresses your concerns regarding the need for comparison and critical reflection.

 

7. The authors should discuss the limitations of the study.

 

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion to include a discussion of the study's limitations. We have added a Limitations section towards the end of the paper. This section acknowledges that much of the data presented is drawn from specific case studies in regions like Rwanda, Ghana, and Switzerland, which may not be fully generalizable to other healthcare systems or geographical locations. Additionally, it highlights that the reviewed studies focus primarily on short-term implementations, which limits the ability to assess the long-term sustainability and scalability of drone operations. We believe this addition addresses your concern by providing transparency on the scope of the review.

 

8. The authors should discuss the theoretical and practical (managerial implications of their study). Who and for what can use the results of their study?

 

Answer: Thank you for your feedback regarding the theoretical and practical implications of the study. We believe that both the theoretical and practical contributions have been sufficiently addressed throughout the manuscript.

The paper discusses the theoretical implications in terms of how drone technology advancements (e.g., AI-driven navigation, real-time monitoring, secure payload systems) can impact future research and healthcare logistics models. It also highlights practical applications through case studies, demonstrating how drones have been successfully integrated into healthcare systems to improve transportation efficiency and accessibility, particularly in underserved regions.

Additionally, we discuss the broader managerial implications for healthcare providers, policymakers, and logistics companies, emphasizing the potential of drones to reduce costs, overcome geographical barriers, and improve patient outcomes. These insights are intended to inform both theory and practice within the field of healthcare logistics.

 

9. There are some technical issues:

 

5. a)     There should be at least a couple of sentences between the levels of different levels (e.g. between heading 5 and sub-heading 5.1).

 

Answer: Thank you for your feedback regarding the structure and spacing between different heading levels. We have revised the manuscript to include introductory or transitional sentences between higher-level headings and their subheadings. These additions ensure a smoother flow and clearer separation between sections, improving the overall readability of the paper.

 

1. b)    References in the reference list are not formatted according to the Instructions for authors (provided template).

 

Answer: Thank you for your feedback regarding the structure and spacing between different heading levels. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and ensured that there are appropriate transitions and spacing between headings and subheadings, as per the journal's guidelines. The structure now aligns with the required template, ensuring a clear and logical flow throughout the paper.

 

1. c)     Some references are not complete. They are missing important information such as volume, issues, or page numbers.

 

Answer: Thank you for your comment regarding incomplete references. We have reviewed the reference list, and all citations were initially copy-pasted directly from PubMed and Google Scholar. We will ensure that any missing information, such as volume numbers, issue numbers, or page numbers, is completed and properly formatted according to the journal's instructions for authors.

 

1. d)    Acronyms/Abbreviations/Initialisms should be defined the first time they appear in the paper. For example, the abbreviation “AI” is not defined in the abstract, and “GPS” is not defined in the main text. 

 

Answer: Thank you for pointing out the need to define acronyms, abbreviations, and initialisms. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and ensured that all abbreviations, including AI (Artificial Intelligence), UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), BVLOS (Beyond Visual Line of Sight), HIS (Hospital Information Systems), and GPS (Global Positioning System), among others, are defined the first time they appear in the text. We have also addressed the use of "GPS" by providing its full definition where it first appears.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have invested a substantial effort to address all issues identified in the previous review round, thus significantly improving the quality of their study. Therefore, I suggest accepting the paper in its present form.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is acceptable. Only minor issues are identified. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your kind and positive feedback. We are pleased to hear that our revisions have significantly improved the quality of the study. We also appreciate your acknowledgment that the English language is acceptable.

In response to your suggestion, we have carefully gone through the entire manuscript once again and made some minor edits to improve the clarity and overall flow of the language. We hope that these final revisions further enhance the readability of our work.

Thank you once again for your thoughtful comments and for recommending acceptance.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx