Next Article in Journal
Prognostic and Predictive Value of Systemic Inflammatory Markers in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Sugammadex on the Coagulation Profile of Living Liver Donors Undergoing Hepatectomy: A Case-Control Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Medicina
Volume 61
Issue 3
10.3390/medicina61030379
Review Report
medicina-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

Intravesical BCG: A Double-Edged Sword? The Untold Story of Infection Risks

Medicina 2025, 61(3), 379; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61030379
by Orçun Barkay 1,* and Ercüment Keskin 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Lorenzo Spirito
Medicina 2025, 61(3), 379; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61030379
Submission received: 1 February 2025 / Revised: 18 February 2025 / Accepted: 20 February 2025 / Published: 22 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Urology & Nephrology)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper reported the correlation between intravesical instillation of BCG and UTIs. The reviewer would like to suggest some critiques to make this paper as follows.

 

  1. On line 9, ‘Intravesical (IV) BCG therapy’ is not wrong, but it is an expression that may induce misunderstandings in the reader. “IV” is usually taken to mean intravenous. The reviewer thinks that intravesical instillation of BCG is adequate.
  2. On line 19, “IV BCG cycle” is inadequate. “the number of~” is correct.
  3. On line 26, the authors should change from “UTI development” to “the risk of developing a UTI.”
  4. On line 41, “urothelial cancer” should be used instead of “urothelial carcinoma.”
  5. On line 46, this sentence is unclear. Many other intravesical agents? None of which have..?
  6. On line 60, “the perspectives … experts” is unclear. The expert of …?
  7. In the way the data is described, mean and SD seem inappropriate. Does this data follow a normal distribution? The data should be used median and IQR.
  8. The authors should also revise the way the p-values are listed in the Tables.
  9. Normally, the significant digits of the p-value should be standardized to three digits.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors in their article describe with good vision the risk of infection-inflammation in BCG therapies. A truly real life focus on these patients.

Topic of current interest. Good general organization of the paper. Proper methodology. Sufficient use of English.

 

I have only minor comments to improve the paper:

 

1) It does not describe any prophylaxis

2) could be cited:

D-Mannose Plus Saccharomyces boulardii to Prevent Urinary Tract Infections and Discomfort after Cystoscopy: A Single-Center Prospective Randomized Pilot Study

Quattrone, C. Medicina (Lithuania), 2023, 59(6), 1165

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

none.

Back to TopTop