Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings in Infantile Spasms
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this manuscript, the authors evaluated the application of brain magnetic resonance imaging for infantile spasms; summarized the etiologies of the infantile spasms; analyzed the outcomes of both first and repeated MRIs in the children diagnosed with infantile spasms; also discussed the rational and significance of MRI in infantile spasms diagnosis. While some valuable findings can be recognized, some minor issues need to be taken into account.
- The authors obviously collected very nice datasets; however, a little more effort can be put into the data analysis. Not sure how the data analyzing was conducted with few words in the Statistic analysis
- The authors clarified that the follow-up MRIs showed structural abnormalities (84%), not sure how significant of the comparison between initial and repeated MRIs.
- The clinical characters of the children with infantile spasms were well summarized in the tables; however, a bar chart or scatter chart can be suggested for some important variables, e.g., positive and negative findings between initial and follow-up MRIs.
- In the figure section, some labels or arrow symbols can be decorated at the appropriate site in the figures to let people better understand abnormities.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript presents interesting results on a complex and difficult subject.
Both the type of malformation detected (which is often complex) and any genetic deficiency diagnosed should be better specified in the manuscript.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings in Infantile Spasms
Author discusses MRI findings in infantile spams. The data is of importance and help augment understanding epilepsy and developmental delay in such subjects however it lacks presentation and discussion. Major review might help improve the manuscript. My few suggestions are:
- Exclusion criteria: (2) unavailability of MRI brain. What does authors mean by this? The study is based on MRI so this is not an exclusion criteria.
- 3. Statistical analysis : This section is misinterpreted due to poor narration. What does author imply by ‘Significance of the obtained results was judged at the 5% level. ‘ please rephrase.
- Please move table 1 to supplementary data, it is presented as Table 2 and Figure1.
- Kindly add values in figure1 like percent or number.
- The presentation of Figure 2 needs significant improvement.
- The take home message is not clear in the manuscript. Authors state ‘abnormal MRI brain can be associated with active epilepsy and global developmental delay.’ However they do not show MRI in any longitudinal case. It would be good to see MRI images.
- Please labels orientation in MRI images, also show with arrows what the author is. Depicting in each MRI image.
- MRI images are raw and should be modified uniformly.
- In discussion, please describe what lies in MRI images that can help conclude clinicians about active epilepsy and global developmental delay.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Nothing
Reviewer 3 Report
Kindly accept manuscript in current form with proper table formatting and english language editing.
