Skip Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Devika Sanil Kumar1,
  • Gowtham Hanumanram2 and
  • Kannan Rajendran2
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The summary is quite adequate.

The introduction section is coherent, however it is a bit lengthy. I suggest summarizing several points, so that it is not too exhausting to read.

In the Methods section it is important to describe the dates of the study and its context in the country (wave that was going through, burden of disease in the region, etc.)

In the discussion section, the possible affectation according to the variants of the virus should be considered. I consider it prudent to use this reference: Pecho-Silva S, Barboza JJ, Navarro-Solsol AC, Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Bonilla-Aldana K, Panduro-Correa V. SARS-CoV-2 Mutations and Variants: what do we know so far? Microbes Infect Chemother. 2021; 1: e1256.

 

Pretty neat job. I congratulate the authors.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our article. Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript by Kumar Ds, et al. studied the correlation of serum oxidative stress makers and symptom severity in COVID19 patients with different age groups and found high GSTp, low SOD3 level, and diabetes as co-morbidity may result in poor prognosis. This study added some new information on the topic on oxidative stress in COVID19 patients. However, there are still some points that need to be addressed.

Major points:

  1. In Table 1, the GSTp1 values (median and range) for  <60 and >60 columns are the same as females (<60 and >60 sub-columns). Does it mean all patients <60 are females?
  2. In this cohort, the serum zinc level was above normal range, which is opposite from the study by Muhammad Y, et al., SAGE Open Medicine, 2021, showing a significant decrease in plasma Zn in COVID patients. This discrepancy requires further discussion. 

Minor points: 

  1. There are some typos and grammar errors, e.g. line 89, "effect"; line 269, "reveals"; line 288, "and" should read as "are".
  2. Some recent studies on this topic are not cited, e.g. Kumar P, et al., Antioxidants, 2022, 11 (1): 50.
  3. In table 1, the statistically significant values when comparing female and male <60 and >60 sub-columns should be labeled. 

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our article. please see the attachments

Author Response File: Author Response.docx