Review Reports
- Heinrich Schulte-Baukloh1,2,3,*,
- Catarina Weiss4 and
- Thorsten Schlomm1
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Karel Everaert Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous Reviewer 4: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a nice study and result relevant for clinical practice. My only concern is the tables as they are not understandable without reading the text.
Tables have to be self-explanatory:
- Plenty of abbreviations not explained in the legend
- Why using needle 1, 2 and 3? It is better to write needle 27G,….
- M1-RS1 in the Tables, refer to Figure 1 in the legend
- All Tables need a legend, also Table 3.
No information on differences between areas of injection in the bladder in the abstract and almost nothing in the result section with exception of the large tables. Nothing on the results of site of injection in the discussion section although there are large Tables + Figure about it in the results?
The authors must improve the Tables and add more legend and need to discuss the impact of site on injections. Furthermore they need to say something about the large bulk of results on site of injection in their abstract and discussion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsInteresting study!...
Comments
Why was not used a flexible cystoscope with its needles?
What was the local anesthesia (20 min) used?
There are different number of injections between neurogenic and non neurogenic patients as was approved, you used 17 to decrease pain so...
Important also to measure the duration of effect and satisfaction amongst these patients (quite different to those who we use a light sedation, I suppose)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attachment
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have gone through manuscript entitled “Botulinumtoxin for Hyperactive Urinary Tract Dysfunction - after a Decade from Approval: Needle Matters: A Single-Blinded Study to Evaluate the Pain Reduction of OnabotulinumtoxinA Detrusor Injection Using Different Injection Needles” and found interesting. Some of minor corrections are:
1. author should add the schematic representation of whole study in introduction section so audience can easily understand the hypothesis.
2. Author should include recent reference papers for the study.
3. author mentioned different reference in discussion part that creates confusion, please revisit and put only relevant one.
4. In summary sections, in place of bullet points author can show his output by graphical way for better understanding the study.
5. some abbreviation are missing, please revisit and add.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo comments
Thank you very much for your revisions
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo comments
Thank you very much for your revisions