Negative Factors Influencing Multiple-Trauma Patients
, Aurelian-Dumitrache Anghele 3, Cosmina-Alina Moscu 4 and Liliana Dragomir 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is a well-written study on “Negative Factors influencing Polytraumatized Patient”. The work is of considerable importance for both the patients and caregivers. However, there are areas for Improvement.
There is an ongoing conusion with the terms “polytrauma” and “multiple trauma” in the medical literature worldwide. In my point of view, “multiple trauma” is more convenient to describe trauma involving more than one organ systems. The term “polytrauma” is mosty used by European authors to cite the phenomenon.
The table legends should be more explanatory with respect to their contents, irrespective of the main text. These statements should provide satisfactory insight into the interpretations of the contents of the tables.
In the results section, the numerical findings (n) should accompany the percentages (%).
A paragraph for limitations can be added to help the readers understand the article’s deficiencies and weak points.
P values are missing in the statistical results. The authors should give explanations on this point.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNone.
Author Response
R1
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
Quality of English Language
( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
(x) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript is a well-written study on “Negative Factors influencing Polytraumatized Patient”. The work is of considerable importance for both the patients and caregivers. However, there are areas for Improvement.
“Negative Factors influencing Multiple trauma Patient”.
There is an ongoing conusion with the terms “polytrauma” and “multiple trauma” in the medical literature worldwide. In my point of view, “multiple trauma” is more convenient to describe trauma involving more than one organ systems. The term “polytrauma” is mosty used by European authors to cite the phenomenon.
I replaced the term.
The table legends should be more explanatory with respect to their contents, irrespective of the main text. These statements should provide satisfactory insight into the interpretations of the contents of the tables.
In the results section, the numerical findings (n) should accompany the percentages (%).
A paragraph for limitations can be added to help the readers understand the article’s deficiencies and weak points.
P values are missing in the statistical results. The authors should give explanations on this point.
I corrected.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
None.
Submission Date
11 July 2024
Date of this review
29 Jul 2024 10:22:50
Thank you for collaboration.
30.07.2024
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors present a manuscript describing a study examining data at a community hospital to better understand the impact and predicted outcomes of patients who experience polytrauma. Overall, the manuscript will make a contribution to the field and help us to better understand the effects of polytrauma. The authors need to examine and correct the reference numbering. The suggestions below are to improve clarity:
Introduction:
page 1-line 17 and 19: Citations needed.
page 1-line 23: References start at the number 2. Where is #1 cited prior to this?
page 1-line 23: Citations not numbered according to order (i.e. 2,13,43??).
page 1-line 34: Citation needed.
page 2-line 49: How does this citation (#16) relate to the statement? Please provide further details.
page 2-lines 62-65: Does citation #6 cover all the information stated?
Materials and Methods:
page 2-line 78: Inclusion criteria should be included next to the sentence where it is first mentioned. What is your exclusion criteria?
page 2-lines 98-99: You mention percentages in "subsequent years.." but you then present data from previous years. Please clarify.
Results:
page 3-line 109: This sentence appears to be in isolation but does related to the next paragraph. It should be all in one paragraph if it is talking about the GSC score.
page 3-line 123: CFT -I think this refers to craniofacial trauma but where is it define prior to this? If this is the first time, please spell out.
page 3-Table 3: Definition of table terms needed as a footnote to the table.
page 4-line 138: "According to the literature...." please provide a citation to what literature you are referring to. Also indicate in line 139 how the findings compare to the literature.
page 4-line 141: It would be helpful to have a brief description of these terms: "pneumomediaiastinum", "hemoperitoneum".
page 5-line 156: What is SAH (subarachnoid hemorrhage?). If this is the first mention of this term it would be helpful to spell out.
page 5-Table 4: Please include term definitions in this table as a footnote.
Discussion
page 5-line 178: Citation needed.
page 6-line 237-240: According to the literature...." Citation needed.
page 7-line 253: What is this sentence ("The goals of pharmocotherapy....) referring to? Please provide further details.
page 7-Conclusion: Conclusion should be in a single paragraph.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English language needs reviewed and ammended.
Author Response
R2
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
Quality of English Language
( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
(x) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors present a manuscript describing a study examining data at a community hospital to better understand the impact and predicted outcomes of patients who experience polytrauma. Overall, the manuscript will make a contribution to the field and help us to better understand the effects of polytrauma. The authors need to examine and correct the reference numbering. The suggestions below are to improve clarity:
Introduction:
page 1-line 17 and 19: Citations needed. I have done.
page 1-line 23: References start at the number 2. Where is #1 cited prior to this? I corrected.
page 1-line 23: Citations not numbered according to order (i.e. 2,13,43??).No , Citations are numbered according to alphabetic order.
page 1-line 34: Citation needed. I have done.
page 2-line 49: How does this citation (#16) relate to the statement? Please provide further details. I replaced.
page 2-lines 62-65: Does citation #6 cover all the information stated? yes
Materials and Methods:
page 2-line 78: Inclusion criteria should be included next to the sentence where it is first mentioned. What is your exclusion criteria? I have done
The exclusion criteria for the study included patients and their families who refused to participate as well as patients with isolated traumas that posed a minimalor non-existent risk of complications.
page 2-lines 98-99: You mention percentages in "subsequent years.." but you then present data from previous years. Please clarify. I corrected.
Results:
page 3-line 109: This sentence appears to be in isolation but does related to the next paragraph. It should be all in one paragraph if it is talking about the GSC score. I deleted it.
page 3-line 123: CFT -I think this refers to craniofacial trauma but where is it define prior to this? If this is the first time, please spell out. I have done.
page 3-Table 3: Definition of table terms needed as a footnote to the table. I have done.
page 4-line 138: "According to the literature...." please provide a citation to what literature you are referring to. Also indicate in line 139 how the findings compare to the literature. I have done.
page 4-line 141: It would be helpful to have a brief description of these terms: "pneumomediaiastinum", "hemoperitoneum". I have done.
page 5-line 156: What is SAH (subarachnoid hemorrhage?). If this is the first mention of this term it would be helpful to spell out. I have done.
page 5-Table 4: Please include term definitions in this table as a footnote. I have done.
Discussion
page 5-line 178: Citation needed. I have done.
page 6-line 237-240: According to the literature...." Citation needed. I have done.
page 7-line 253: What is this sentence ("The goals of pharmocotherapy....) referring to? Please provide further details.
The goals of pharmacotherapy are to reduce morbidity, prevent complications, and
improve symptoms and quality of life, decrease hospitalizations, and improve mortality. The goal of pharmacologic therapy is to control symptoms and initiate and escalate drugs that reduce mortality and morbidity in multiple trauma patients.
page 7-Conclusion: Conclusion should be in a single paragraph. I have done.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English language needs reviewed and ammended.
Submission Date
11 July 2024
Date of this review
23 Jul 2024 22:16:50
Thank you for collaboration.
30.07.2024
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt can be accepted in the current form.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have comprehensively addressed reviewer feedback.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt would be helpful to edit for English language.
