Cell Count Differentials by Cytomorphology and Next-Generation Flow Cytometry in Bone Marrow Aspirate: An Evidence-Based Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This review report has been removed from the review record as it did not conform with MDPI’s standards (https://www.mdpi.com/reviewers#_bookmark11)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well written manuscript, however the ISO standard demanded needs for optimization. 

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?  Ans.: The main question addressed by the manuscript is about deep analysis of PAEs in BMA DCC.  2. Is it relevant and interesting?  Ans.: Yes its relevant and interesting unless the authors are requesting for ISO 15189 Standard for PAEs record keeping.  3. How original is the topic?  Ans.: Yes the topic is original as seen from their pre clinical and post clinical data evaluation.  4. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?  Ans.: The comparative analysis part is not addressed much by the authors as they wish for ISO 15189 Standard for BMCS DCC report analysis. It requires a higher rate of literature reviews.  5. Is the paper well written? Ans.: Yes the manuscript is well written.  6. Is the text clear and easy to read?  Ans.: Yes the text is clear and easy to understand.  7. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?  Ans.: yes the conclusion is consistent with the evidence and discussion. Here they proposed the real-life data analysis of PAEs in BMA DCC via deep analysis methodology.   8. Do they address the main question posed? Ans.: Yes they addressed the main question posted. 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well written manuscript, however the ISO standard demanded needs for optimization. 

1. What is the main question addressed by the research? Ans.: The main question addressed by the manuscript is about deep analysis of PAEs in BMA DCC. We thanks the reviewer's words.
2. Is it relevant and interesting? Ans.: Yes its relevant and interesting unless the authors are requesting for ISO 15189 Standard for PAEs record keeping. We recognize that the engagement with the ISO15189 Standard is a constant opportunity to improve our daily clinical practice.
3. How original is the topic? Ans.: Yes the topic is original as seen from their pre clinical and post clinical data evaluation.  We thanks the reviewer's words.
4. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? Ans.: The comparative analysis part is not addressed much by the authors as they wish for ISO 15189 Standard for BMCS DCC report analysis. It requires a higher rate of literature reviews. We agree with the reviewer. We have made a deep literature search on this topic but there is a remarkable lack  of evidence-based works on this topic. Our aim was to find a balance between quality and efficiency from a practical point of view.
5. Is the paper well written?Ans.: Yes the manuscript is well written. We thanks the reviewer's words.
6. Is the text clear and easy to read? Ans.: Yes the text is clear and easy to understand.  We thanks the reviewer's words.
7. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Ans.: yes the conclusion is consistent with the evidence and discussion. Here they proposed the real-life data analysis of PAEs in BMA DCC via deep analysis methodology.  We thanks the reviewer's words.
8. Do they address the main question posed?Ans.: Yes they addressed the main question posted. We thanks the reviewer's words.

Thank you for your kind consideration

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper by Rafael Ríos-Tamayo et al is a text that has already been properly revised. It describes a comparative study between the analysis of 200 vs 500 events acquired in laboratory analysis of haematological diseases at diagnosis or during the follow-up.

The sections of the text are properly described. 

The authors should clearly indicate the benefits of this method both in the part of the results and in the conclusions.

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewer's comments. We agree that the benefit of this method should be more clearly emphasized. We have added a comment about it in the two indicated sections.