Association of Lesion Topography with Functional Outcomes in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Considered for, or Receiving, Reperfusion Therapy: A Meta-Analysis
, Zeljka Calic 1,2,3,8,9, Roy G. Beran 2,3,4,6,8,9,10 and Sonu M. M. Bhaskar 1,2,4,8,9,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A lot of research results in the lists. The topic is original and very important due to the prognosis of acute ischemic stroke. The use of the ASPECTS score in this publication is very important. The meta-analysis is to answer five questions included in the Introduction. I have no objections to the methods used. The authors recommend further research. The authors described the limitations in point 4.3. References are up to date.
Author Response
C# A lot of research results in the lists. The topic is original and very important due to the prognosis of acute ischemic stroke. The use of the ASPECTS score in this publication is very important. The meta-analysis is to answer five questions included in the Introduction. I have no objections to the methods used. The authors recommend further research. The authors described the limitations in point 4.3. References are up to date
Reply# We thank the reviewer for the constructive feedback and review of our work.
Reviewer 2 Report
Very interesting review on analyzing accuracy of ASPECTS-based LT assessment with meta-analysis which demonstrates that decreasing ASPECTS is associated with poor functional outcomes.
Very well presented and documented.
Minor remarks and suggestions:
- I would improve the findings in the conclusion (elaborate more)
- I suggest the author to improve the quality of the presented figures
- Did the author consider to enlarge the searching databases?
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the review of our work and valuable comments. Point by point rebuttal is provided below;
C#1: Very interesting review on analyzing accuracy of ASPECTS-based LT assessment with meta-analysis which demonstrates that decreasing ASPECTS is associated with poor functional outcomes.
Very well presented and documented.
Reply# We thank the reviewer for the favourable review of our work.
C#2: Minor remarks and suggestions:
- I would improve the findings in the conclusion (elaborate more)
Reply# We thank the reviewer for the remark. We have added the following statement to the conclusion.
"These findings indicate the prognostic utility of LT assessment, using tools such as ASPECTS, in AIS patients receiving RT"
C#3: - I suggest the author to improve the quality of the presented figures
Reply# The high-resolution figures have been provided. We are happy to make any further changes if needed.
C#3: Did the author consider to enlarge the searching databases?
Reply# Yes, indeed. Additional articles were also retrieved from Google Scholar using the keywords/terms specified in the manuscript. This has been explained in the main document. We believe PubMed and Google Scholar encompass a comprehensive database for searching appropriate studies.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
