Next Article in Journal
Deformation Parameters of the Heart in Endurance Athletes and in Patients with Dilated Cardiomyopathy—A Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Analytical Evaluation of Visby Medical RT-PCR Portable Device for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2
Previous Article in Journal
Has the Flood Entered the Basement? A Systematic Literature Review about Machine Learning in Laboratory Medicine
Previous Article in Special Issue
Clinical Utility of Delta Lactate for Predicting Early In-Hospital Mortality in Adult Patients: A Prospective, Multicentric, Cohort Study
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Comparison of Lung Ultrasound versus Chest X-ray for Detection of Pulmonary Infiltrates in COVID-19

Diagnostics 2021, 11(2), 373; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11020373
by María Mateos González 1,2, Gonzalo García de Casasola Sánchez 1,2, Francisco Javier Teigell Muñoz 1,2, Kevin Proud 3,4, Davide Lourdo 1,2, Julia-Verena Sander 5, Gabriel E. Ortiz Jaimes 3,4, Michael Mader 6, Jesús Canora Lebrato 7, Marcos I. Restrepo 3,4 and Nilam J. Soni 3,4,8,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Diagnostics 2021, 11(2), 373; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11020373
Submission received: 1 February 2021 / Revised: 10 February 2021 / Accepted: 19 February 2021 / Published: 22 February 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Implementation Science for Point-of-Care Diagnostics)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors showed very interesting approaches using wireless(point-of-care) /mobile ultrasound imaging and x-ray chest imaging in COVID-19. Authors showed well summarized data to check the true and false cases for patients.  Therefore, authors can conclude that wireless/mobile ultrasound imaging could be useful for the patients in COVID-19. Authors also showed the limitation of the proposed study because COVID-19 pandemic situation makes the data be unpredictable for some cases.  There are no English grammar issues at all. However, some Figure qualities need to be improved. Therefore, the manuscript can be minor revision. There are some comments as suggested.

  1. Please check MDPI reference styles.
  2.  Figure A1 labels are too small so authors need to increase the size of Figure A1.
  3. Please do not use reference numbers before . in the sentences.
  4. Please correct "We report" to "We reported".
  5. Please correct "has limitations." to "has some limitations".

Author Response

Please see attached document with responses to reviewer comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to congratulate the authors for the study carried out and for the amazing work.

 

My comments to the authors are:

 

There are several misspelled words in the manuscript. For example minimise (line 103); categorised (line 108); dyspnoea (line 143); recognise (line 234). Check all paper

 

Section 2.5 is not required

 

Figures must be included in the text

 

It´s need a conclusion section.

 

References

The style of the references is not correct.

Author Response

Please see attached document with responses to reviewer comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop