Manual and Mechanical Induced Peri-Resuscitation Injuries—Post-Mortem and Clinical Findings^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have tried to study the CPR-associated injuries through literature and compare them with local clinical and post-mortem data. However, there are major concerns in the trial protocol.

1)     Are lines 206 to 214 dictate the findings and recommendations of the authors? If so, it is not clear and sufficient. I recommend authors use a figure or table to summarize the indicators.

2)     The study mentions different CPR devices (LUCAS, Corpuls, and AutoPulse). Include a figure or table describing the CPR-related injuries and risk factors associated with the other CPR devices.

Other minor comments:

1)     Needs extensive English correction – include punctuations wherever necessary.

2)     Expand what is CC in its first mention (line 56)

3)     Lines 35-38 – Split into two. There are a few sentences in the manuscript that needs similar attention. 

Author Response

On behalf of all authors, I would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive suggestions and the opportunity to improve our script.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Sir/Madam,

I had the opportunity to act as a reviewer on the recent submission by Gödde et al. to the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

in this manuscript Gödde et al. present an interesting trial protocol investigating anatomical-pathological findings from local institutions in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany to assess the transferability of the review-data to the German healthcare system.

However, some issues need to be addressed:

1. The introduction seems too long.
2. What are exactly the knowledge gaps mentioned on line 126? Could the authors be more specific?
3. Improving the quality of the CPR (line 192) means increasing both safety and efficacy: how do the authors plan to use their data in order to achieve this target?
4. Please comment on the potential to improve the mechanical CPR devices mentioned.
5. On line 192 there the word “to” appears two times.

Best regards

Author Response

On behalf of all authors, I would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive suggestions and the opportunity to improve our script.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors addressed all the concerns. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Sir/Madam,

I had the opportunity to act as a reviewer on the recent submission by Gödde et al. to the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

The issues raised were adequately answered.

Best regards