Congenital Cytomegalovirus-Related Hearing Loss

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article reviews CMV-related hearing loss comprehensively, including the incidence, diagnosis, treatment, and so on, but there are some problems in the article, please check.

1.    It may be more appropriate to add the citation mark before the full stop.

2.      There is a lack of punctuation at the end of the second paragraph of the introduction.

3.      How is the conclusion about “Despite these consistent prevalence rates” reached in the first paragraph of the introduction?

4.      Lines 1-7 of the third paragraph of the introduction are missing a quote to tell us where your data came from.

5.      There is no mention of the manifestation of hearing loss due to cCMV infection before lines 5-7 of the third paragraph of the introduction, so it is not appropriate to say “immediate or delayed hearing impairment” here.

6.      The third paragraph of the introduction has linguistic and logical problems, e.g., lines 7-8 could be brought forward to the beginning of the paragraph, so please adjust the content.

7.      The third paragraph of the introduction, lines 11-13, lacks a citation.

8.      The data in the last sentence of the introduction and the last sentence of the first paragraph of Part III can be summarized.

9.      What is meant by the phrase "amniotic fluid irregularities" in the third paragraph of part III?

10.  What’s the meaning of " both tests are designed to be administered by non-specialized personnel " in the fifth paragraph of part III?

11.  “OAE tests assess the entire auditory pathway from the outer ear through the middle ear to the inner ear and back, and are not affected by issues beyond the cochlea” in paragraph 6 of Part III, may give rise to misunderstanding and it is suggested that it be amended.

12.  In part III, paragraph 6, please provide separate citations to the literature at the end of the sentence.

13.  There is a grammatical error in Part III, tenth paragraph, lines 9-12, please check.

14.  There is a lack of citation in lines 9-11 of the eleventh paragraph of Part III.

15.  The title of the first paragraph of Part Ⅳ is not very appropriate and could be revised.

16.  Part IV, first paragraph, lines 4-8 are ambiguous, please check the original document.

17.  Paragraph 3 of Part IV lacks a citation, please check whether it is a direct excerpt from the original text.

18.  The first two paragraphs of the conclusion would be more appropriately placed in the discussion.

19.  Explanations of abbreviations are needed in their first occurrence.

20.  Some of the statements in the text are lengthy and could be further embellished to make the text more understandable.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article reviews CMV-related hearing loss comprehensively, including the incidence, diagnosis, treatment, and so on, but there are some problems in the article, please check.

1. It may be more appropriate to add the citation mark before the full stop.

We changed the punctuation in the whole article as suggested.

2. There is a lack of punctuation at the end of the second paragraph of the introduction.

We corrected the mistake.

3. How is the conclusion about “Despite these consistent prevalence rates” reached in the first paragraph of the introduction?

We wanted to highlight form the beginning of the article the value of the screening in diagnosing congentital hearing loss.

4. Lines 1-7 of the third paragraph of the introduction are missing a quote to tell us where your data came from.

We are sorry for this mistake. We added the citation mark.

5. There is no mention of the manifestation of hearing loss due to cCMV infection before lines 5-7 of the third paragraph of the introduction, so it is not appropriate to say “immediate or delayed hearing impairment” here.

We deleted this expression.

6. The third paragraph of the introduction has linguistic and logical problems, e.g., lines 7-8 could be brought forward to the beginning of the paragraph, so please adjust the content.

We changed the order of the sentences.

7. The third paragraph of the introduction, lines 11-13, lacks a citation.

We added the citation.

7. The data in the last sentence of the introduction and the last sentence of the first paragraph of Part III can be summarized.

This has been addressed.

9. What is meant by the phrase "amniotic fluid irregularities" in the third paragraph of part III?

We are sorry for the misunderstanding. We changed the word with abnormalities. We referred to increased amniotic fluid volume as an abnormality of the amniotic fluid.

10. What’s the meaning of " both tests are designed to be administered by non-specialized personnel " in the fifth paragraph of part III?

We referred to universal screening in maternities by neonatologists instead of otorhinolaryngologists.

11. “OAE tests assess the entire auditory pathway from the outer ear through the middle ear to the inner ear and back, and are not affected by issues beyond the cochlea” in paragraph 6 of Part III, may give rise to misunderstanding and it is suggested that it be amended.

We rephrased this sentence.

12. In part III, paragraph 6, please provide separate citations to the literature at the end of the sentence.

We did this as suggested.

13. There is a grammatical error in Part III, tenth paragraph, lines 9-12, please check.

We corrected that sentence.

14. There is a lack of citation in lines 9-11 of the eleventh paragraph of Part III.

This has been addressed.

15. The title of the first paragraph of Part Ⅳ is not very appropriate and could be revised.

The title has been changed.

16. Part IV, first paragraph, lines 4-8 are ambiguous, please check the original document.

We corrected that sentence.

17. Paragraph 3 of Part IV lacks a citation, please check whether it is a direct excerpt from the original text.

This has been addressed.

18. The first two paragraphs of the conclusion would be more appropriately placed in the discussion.

Thank you. We changed according to this suggestion.

19. Explanations of abbreviations are needed in their first occurrence.

We added the explanation of abbreviations.

20. Some of the statements in the text are lengthy and could be further embellished to make the text more understandable.

This has been addressed.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors wrote a literary review about Congenital CMV-related hearing loss. The review is very interesting, but too simple. To be worthy of publication, it needs different corrections and insights. I have some suggestions to improve the quality of the study and to give a better impact in scientific literature.

1. In material and methods, please use the PRISMA criteria to select the correct articles in scientific literature, how suggest the MDPI guidelines.

2. I think that in case of CMV infection, should be important perform the VEMPs to analyze the vestibular function, please use this reference: Ciodaro F, Freni F, Alberti G, Forelli M, Gazia F, Bruno R, Sherdell EP, Galletti B, Galletti F. Application of Cervical Vestibular-Evoked Myogenic Potentials in Adults with Moderate to Profound Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Preliminary Study. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2020 Jan;24(1):e5-e10. 

3. In the title, please do not use abbreviation

4. Please in the result create a table including all the papers analyzed, with a short summery or the key points for everyone

 

5. Please write a paragraph about treatment of congenital SNHL, using hearing aids or cochlear implant surgery, use: Gazia F, Abita P, Alberti G, Loteta S, Longo P, Caminiti F et al. NICU Infants & SNHL: Experience of a western Sicily tertiary care centre. Acta Medica Mediterranea. 2019, 35(2): 1001-7

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors wrote a literary review about Congenital CMV-related hearing loss. The review is very interesting, but too simple. To be worthy of publication, it needs different corrections and insights. I have some suggestions to improve the quality of the study and to give a better impact in scientific literature.

 

In material and methods, please use the PRISMA criteria to select the correct articles in scientific literature, how suggest the MDPI guidelines.

This was now addressed.

 

I think that in case of CMV infection, should be important perform the VEMPs to analyze the vestibular function, please use this reference: Ciodaro F, Freni F, Alberti G, Forelli M, Gazia F, Bruno R, Sherdell EP, Galletti B, Galletti F. Application of Cervical Vestibular-Evoked Myogenic Potentials in Adults with Moderate to Profound Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Preliminary Study. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2020 Jan;24(1):e5-e10.

Thank you for your suggestion. We added this paragraph:

“A case-controlled retrospective study performed on 35 adult patients with moderate to profound sensorineural hearing loss showed that cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials (VEMP) is useful in increasing the diagnosis of underlying causes of SNHL.”

 

In the title, please do not use abbreviation

We corrected the title without abbreviation.

 

Please in the result create a table including all the papers analyzed, with a short summery or the key points for everyone.

This was now added. Thank you for your input.

 

Please write a paragraph about treatment of congenital SNHL, using hearing aids or cochlear implant surgery, use Gazia F, Abita P, Alberti G, Loteta S, Longo P, Caminiti F et al. NICU Infants & SNHL: Experience of a western Sicily tertiary care centre. Acta Medica Mediterranea. 2019, 35(2): 1001

Thank you for your suggestion. We added a paragraph about the treatment of congenital SNHL.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the study is interesting as CMV-related hearing loss is still a common disease. The study aims to review literature in order to find out the most important aspects, features, and details about the disease. In this regard, although the introduction section provides sufficient elements on the topic, the methodology section must be improved. The exact methodology is not reported, including the number of retrieved articles for each database, the total number of selected papers, the inclusion and exclusion criteria used, and the number and reasons for the exclusion of articles. No flow chart of methods or table of results is shown. The time range of the search also is not clearly reported.

 

Given the absence of these data, the results cannot be evaluated. Additionally, the Results section has not been written, nor has the discussion.

 

In conclusion, we suggest that the article be rewritten as a systematic review or presented as a scoping review. In both cases, the article needs to be rewritten and improved.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good english 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the study is interesting as CMV-related hearing loss is still a common disease. The study aims to review literature in order to find out the most important aspects, features, and details about the disease. In this regard, although the introduction section provides sufficient elements on the topic, the methodology section must be improved. The exact methodology is not reported, including the number of retrieved articles for each database, the total number of selected papers, the inclusion and exclusion criteria used, and the number and reasons for the exclusion of articles. No flow chart of methods or table of results is shown. The time range of the search also is not clearly reported.

Given the absence of these data, the results cannot be evaluated. Additionally, the Results section has not been written, nor has the discussion.

In conclusion, we suggest that the article be rewritten as a systematic review or presented as a scoping review. In both cases, the article needs to be rewritten and improved.

Thank you for the thorough evaluation of our review. I appreciate your insights and want to clarify that the study is a literature review. I would like to assure you that all the suggested improvements have been carefully integrated into the article. The methodology section has been enhanced to include specific details on article retrieval from each database, clear criteria for inclusion and exclusion, and a transparent reporting of the search timeframe. New sections and information have been integrated and also a table with all the relevant studies used. We believe these revisions have strengthened the article and addressed the concerns raised. Thank you for your valuable feedback.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors provided detailed and thorough answers to all the questions. I highly recommend accepting their article.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

Thank you very much for your feedback.

 

Best regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this way the article is worthy of publication, there is only a lank. In the first suggestion, I propose to write the PRISMA criteria in a Table to summerize the artcle chosen. Please insert a PRISMA flowchart.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your suggestion. A flowchart is now available in Methods section.

Best regards,