Next Article in Journal
Potential Role of Seven Proteomics Tissue Biomarkers for Diagnosis and Prognosis of Prostate Cancer in Urine
Next Article in Special Issue
Myocardial Infarction in Young Athletes
Previous Article in Journal
Brown Adipose Tissue Biodistribution and Correlations Particularities in Parathyroid Pathology Personalized Diagnosis
Previous Article in Special Issue
T1 Mapping MOLLI 5(3)3 Acquisition Scheme Yields High Accuracy in 1.5 T Cardiac Magnetic Resonance
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Right Ventricular Strain by Magnetic Resonance Feature Tracking Is Largely Afterload-Dependent and Does Not Reflect Contractility: Validation by Combined Volumetry and Invasive Pressure Tracings

Diagnostics 2022, 12(12), 3183; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12123183
by Andreas Rolf 1,2,3,*, Till Keller 1,2,3, Jan Sebastian Wolter 1,3, Steffen Kriechbaum 1,3, Maren Weferling 1, Stefan Guth 4, Christoph Wiedenroth 4, Eckhard Mayer 4, Christian W. Hamm 1,2,3, Ulrich Fischer-Rasokat 1 and Julia Treiber 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Diagnostics 2022, 12(12), 3183; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12123183
Submission received: 2 November 2022 / Revised: 5 December 2022 / Accepted: 12 December 2022 / Published: 16 December 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

-The paper should be interesting ;;;

-it is a good idea to add a block diagram of the proposed research (step by step);;;

-it is a good idea to add more photos of measurements, sensors + arrows/labels what is what  (if any);;;

-What is the result of the analysis?;;

-figures should have high quality. ;;;;;

-text should be formatted;;;;

-please add photos of the application of the proposed research, 2-3 photos ;;; 

-what will society have from the paper?;;

-please compare the advantages/disadvantages of other approaches etc.;;;

-references should be from the web of science 2020-2022 (50% of all references, 30 references at least);;;

-Conclusion: point out what have you done;;;;

-please add some sentences about future work;;;

Author Response

please see attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This article features the valuable clinical findings! Sound methodology and great graphs make the material easy to understand

Limitations of the study are clearly labeled. Great article overall

Author Response

please see attachement

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Fig. 1 should be better quality;;;

Figure 2 please add arrows + labels what is what;;;

Figure 4 and 5 - labels, fonts should be bigger

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for attentively reading the revised form of our paper. We have made further improvements of our figures and hope they are now satisfactory for the reviewer in their present form.

We have enlarged fig. 1 and increased it to 300dpi

We have added arrows to fig. 2 and have added an arrow legend in the accompanying text

We have enlarged fig. 3 to 5, the size of the fonts itself is restricted by the statistics application.

Best regards Andreas Rolf

Back to TopTop