Web Applications for Teaching the Respiratory System: Content Validation
, Isabel Cristina Muñoz 1, Leidy Yanet Serna 2, Carlos Andrés Sarmiento 1, Carlos Leonardo Bravo 1 and Alher Mauricio Hernández 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Extensive article, with a practical interest in the use of information and communication technology for teaching-learning purposes, which seeks to validate two medical teaching modules in web applications, one on the mechanical properties of the respiratory system and the other on mechanical ventilation of the lung. Validation was performed through quantitative analysis (statistics of differences between real data and those predicted by the model) and qualitative (Delphi technique), reporting favorable results both in a population sample and individual by individual. From the results obtained, the authors conclude the existence of an adequate concept of the content of the two modules evaluated.
The manuscript is lengthy, but well written and detailed, including a list of abbreviations, allowing continued reading. Apparently the teaching modules were developed by the research group itself and, although certain details of the implicit models in each module are shown, in this paper only the congruence between experimental data and data predicted by the models is validated, as well as acceptability by an expert panel.
The abstract synthesizes the important information to understand the intention of the work.
The abstract, well structured, synthesizes the important information to understand the intention of the work.
The study involved extensive validation work, managed with a good design and, from this point of view, the application of the Delphi technique stands out. However, my main comment is that the study is very local since, apparently, the evaluated modules are only available to users of the institution that developed them; such condition restricts the interest in the study.
Among the minor comments I have a few:
- The physiological or pathophysiological explanations provided in the discussion seem adequate to me. However, differences between experimental and predicted values of the order of 23% seem very high. In this sense, apart from statistical significance, what is the physiological basis or criterion for the acceptability of the differences between the experimental and predicted values?
- The results of the population analysis are not surprising; however, some predicted values of the individual analysis seem far from the experimental value. It is important to note that the reliability of the results depends not only on the reliability of the prediction model but also on the reliability of the experimental data or the database used. Can you add a comment about it in the discussion section?
- A couple of papers have recently been published that are somehow related to the work under review. Could you comment on them in the discussion? [(a) Paolo Tamburrano, Francesco Sciatti, Elia Distaso, Luigi Di Lorenzo and Riccardo Amirante. Validation of a Simulink Model for Simulating the Two Typical Controlled Ventilation Modes of Intensive Care Units Mechanical Ventilators. Appl Sci. 2022;12(4):2057 doi.org/10.3390/app12042057.] [(b) Napoli NJ, Rodrigues VR, Davenport PW. Characterizing and Modeling Breathing Dynamics: Flow Rate, Rhythm, Period, and Frequency. Front Physiol. 2022 Feb 21;12:772295. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2021.772295]
- What do you consider to be the limitations of the current study? Include comments in the discussion section.
- In Table 4, correct the interquartile value of VTmax with RR≥12 bpm (17-679).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Many thanks for the opportunity to contribute to the pre-publication peer review process for the original submission titled ‘Web applications for teaching the respiratory system: Content validation.’ (applsci-1636943).
Unfortunately this reviewer found the manuscript hard to engage with, frequently asking myself 'so what' and querying if the scientific community really needs this information. The novelty and/or innovation aspect was hard to appreciate, and the limitations of the database, as identified by the authors themselves, restrict the ultimate utility of the application.
The following minor comments only are offered at this point
Page 1, Abstract, line 10 – abbreviations not defined prior to use.
Line 10 – inconsistent style to denote decimal point – 6.6, 9.3 but then 11,8 – suggest review for consistency.
Page 2, Introduction, line 36 – suggest amending to depersonalize
Line 76 – suggest supplement to ‘According to experts, …’
Page 3, Figure 1 – suggest simplify title & create a separate legend to accompany. Within existing title, suggest review use of nested parenthesis and amend such that different style used such that double rounded brackets/parenthesis not used.
Page 6, Methods, line 144 – suggest amending to depersonalize
Line 145 - suggest amending such that sentence does not start with an abbreviation.
Page 9, Results, line 246 – suggest review utility of reporting to 3 decimal points. This review would suggest that to 1 decimal point for such variables would suffice.
Page 10, Table 4 – as comment above, suggest amend decimal point reporting
Page 11, line 268 – suggest substitute word ‘got’ here to something more scientific/methodologically sounding, such as ‘recorded’ or ‘obtained’ or similar
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
