Observational Analysis of Point-of-Care Lactate Plus™ Meter in Preclinical Trauma Models

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find our responses below and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted files.

1. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:

Your efforts in preparing the article are greatly appreciated. My only suggestion is that it would be more accurate to write the abbreviation of liter as L instead of l throughout the article.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We revised the manuscript and capitalized the L. Please see track changes in the document.

2. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Response 1: The manuscript was revised by a native speaker to improve the language of the manuscript.

1. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:

Their study represents the first direct comparison between the i-STAT® and the Lactate

Plus™ meter in a preclinical trauma swine model. With such close correlation between the

two methodologies, this represents an important addition the literature, not only in trauma

but also in expanding the use of serial lactate measurement in the setting of sepsis, for

example. The authors may wish to include reference to this fact since, their model

includes the fecal peritonitis (FP) sepsis model.

Response 1: We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added a sentence in the manuscript that refers to the use of POC lactate measurement for the diagnosis and monitoring of sepsis.