Experimental Assessment of the Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Non-Contact Tonometer Airflows
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors investigate the spatial and temporal characteristics of the air-flow created by two commercially available non-contact tonometers, the CorvisST and the Ocular Response Analyser and they found that novel findings relating to the magnitude, duration and spatial characteristics of the respective airflow pressures are reported.
Major concerns
#1 Interesting topic to improve theorical model of corneal biomechanics.
#2 Daily life practical application is limited.
#3 Extrapolating the information obtained here to a real situation in the cornea is complicated, discuss.
#4 Now it is lagging behind in daily clinical practice and this study comes a little late.
#5 Include more discussion with previous studies, discussion is insufficient.
Minor concerns
#6 Reduce introduction information in order to clarify the background.
#7 Could authors evidence and references previous published work of maps grids?
#8 Justify Figure 6 or delete, seems irrelevant for all ophthalmologist and optometrist clinicians.
#9 Proportional distribution of axis in Figure 7 and 8 are not the same, please solved it.
#10 Include a daily life practical application section on discussion.
#11 Update references before 2010.
#12 Exclude references Journal out of JCR database.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors performed an interesting study to assess the spatial and temporal profiles of the air- flow of the two most well-kwon non-contact tonometers currently available in the market, the ORA and the Corvis ST. Both try to assess corneal biomechanics based on the corneal de formation response. However, as authors stated, the physical properties of the airflow pressure used to applanate the cornea has not been widely characterized. And this study provides further knowledge regarding this issue.
COMMENTS
CoV data for assessing repeatability should include the 95% confidence intervals.
Section 4.3. Authors should also discuss the clinical implications of using air-flows with different characteristic to assess corneal deformation in order to evaluate corneal biomechanical properties.
MINOR COMMENTS.
Figure 4 and 5 legends should indicate that the graphs belong to Corvis ST outcomes.
Line 335. It is written “Equation (1) and Error! Reference source not found.“. Please amend.
Reference numbers within manuscript text sometimes appear as superscript.
A final recommendation in case it is possible. I would include in the submission a short video showing the experimental set up and how both airflow measurements are recorded, which could be very illustrative for the readers.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments solved
