Next Article in Journal
The Effects of Dislocation Dipoles on the Failure Strength of Wrinkled Graphene from Atomistic Simulation
Next Article in Special Issue
Trust Components: An Analysis in The Development of Type 2 Diabetic Mellitus Mobile Application
Previous Article in Journal
Determination of Calorific Value of Mixed Coals by Analysis of Major Elements Using Data Pre-Processing in Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

M-Healthcare Model: An Architecture for a Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Mobile Application

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(1), 8; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13010008
by Salaki Reynaldo Joshua, Wasim Abbas and Je-Hoon Lee *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3:
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(1), 8; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13010008
Submission received: 6 October 2022 / Revised: 12 November 2022 / Accepted: 18 November 2022 / Published: 20 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligent Medicine and Health Care)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations about your work, I have some constructive feedback:

 

- Comment 1: Lines 27 -38. When describing T2 and T1 DM, by reading these lines I see same information but described twice differently, I wonder if maybe by resuming this lines in one way of saying same informaiton might  sound clearer?

- Comment 2: Lines 40 - 50. When describing control and self-control habits / management, same comment as in Comment 1. 

- Comment 3. Lines 112 - 113: When talking about Telehealth and Telemedicine: "...TAs a part of Telehealth, Telemedicine focuses on the therapeutic side, while telemedicine covers the prophylactic, preventive, and therapeutic aspects...". Would you meant Telemedicine and Telehealth, instead of telemendicine and telemedicine?

Author Response

No

Reviewer

Comment

Checklist

1

  1

Lines 27 -38. When describing T2 and T1 DM, by reading these lines I see same information but described twice differently, I wonder if maybe by resuming this lines in one way of saying same informaiton might sound clearer?

Lines 27-38 Described definitions of T1 and T2 from different Researchers, some researchers gave a similar definition.   

1

Lines 40 - 50. When describing control and self-control habits / management, same comment as in Comment 1.

Lines 27-38 Described definitions of T1 and T2 from different Researchers, some researchers gave a similar definition.   

3

         1

Lines 112 - 113: When talking about Telehealth and Telemedicine: "...TAs a part of Telehealth, Telemedicine focuses on the therapeutic side, while telemedicine covers the prophylactic, preventive, and therapeutic aspects...". Would you meant Telemedicine and Telehealth, instead of telemendicine and telemedicine?

I updated the Paragraph, what I mean is Telecare as a part of Telehealth and Telemedicine focus on, etc.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the authors claimed that "Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a metabolic disorder where in the case of Type 2 diabetes the patients require DM management to keep blood glucose under control properly and regularly. Control of diabetes mellitus can be done with support through the use of technology, one of which is Mobile Health". Therefore, they proposed developing an architecture for mobile applications for type-2 diabetic monitoring.

In the reviewer's opinion, this work is very attractive and topical, however, it should be major revised, as follows:

1) In Section 1 is presented quite rigidly, the authors go directly into the concept of Diabetes Mellitus (1.1) without mentioning and emphasis the smart healthcare systems forming context, architecture, support technologies, visions and challenges, thereby highlighting the research issue and its contributions. These issues are shown in the recent study: Smart Healthcare IoT Applications based on Fog Computing: Architecture, Applications and Challenges.

2) Table 1 should be reformatted. The cited references in the title of Table 1 should be removed. Similarly to all other tables.

3) In line 72 and In Table 4, the authors claimed that "Previous researchers have conducted preliminary research through two previous studies (Table 4)". If only aim to present these two studies, the authors should remove Table 4, and then, indicate the cited two studies in References.

5) The Classification in Table 5 does not means, "Enterprise Software", "Product Development Software", and "Media and Entertainment Software" is similar. The authors should lassification based on real-time/emergency/disease prediction/ physical activities/ sport and gym, etc.

6) Fig. 1 is an error, all Figures should be enhanced with the minimum resolution of 300 dpi.

7) In Section 4 (Proposed Architecture), the authors should mention some concepts such as Medical Sensor and Exercise Equipment; Transmission and Information. I recommend the authors re-present these problems such as the challenges of M-health (healthcare). The authors should refer to challenges and communication technologies in 5G in Wireless Communication Technologies for IoT in 5G: Vision, Applications, and Challenges to extend issues.

8) Figures 3 & 4 are very small, it is difficult for readers.

9) Conclusion should be rewritten to highlight the contributions of this paper.

Author Response

No

Reviewer

Comment

Checklist

1

2

1) In Section 1 is presented quite rigidly, the authors go directly into the concept of Diabetes Mellitus (1.1) without mentioning and emphasis the smart healthcare systems forming context, architecture, support technologies, visions and challenges, thereby highlighting the research issue and its contributions. These issues are shown in the recent study: Smart Healthcare IoT Applications based on Fog Computing: Architecture, Applications and Challenges.

Updated 1.1. Smart Healthcare Systems

2

2

2) Table 1 should be reformatted. The cited references in the title of Table 1 should be removed. Similarly to all other tables.

 

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4 

Table 5

Table 6

3

2

3) In line 72 and In Table 4, the authors claimed that "Previous researchers have conducted preliminary research through two previous studies (Table 4)". If only aim to present these two studies, the authors should remove Table 4, and then, indicate the cited two studies in References.

Updated 1.4 Previous Research

4

2

5) The Classification in Table 5 does not means, "Enterprise Software", "Product Development Software", and "Media and Entertainment Software" is similar. The authors should classification based on real-time/emergency/disease prediction/ physical activities/ sport and gym, etc.

Table 5 Focused on five classifications of HealtH Application: 1. Disease Prediction, 2. Clinical Communication, 3. Medication, 4. Exercise, 5. nutrition

5

2

6) Fig. 1 is an error, all Figures should be enhanced with the minimum resolution of 300 dpi.

Already Updated

Figure 3

6

2

7) In Section 4 (Proposed Architecture), the authors should mention some concepts such as Medical Sensor and Exercise Equipment; Transmission and Information. I recommend the authors re-present these problems such as the challenges of M-health (healthcare). The authors should refer to challenges and communication technologies in 5G in Wireless Communication Technologies for IoT in 5G: Vision, Applications, and Challenges to extend issues.

In this Research We just Tested the App with Glucometer and Wearable Band. We don’t have any testing to be and evidence to explain related the challenges in 5G Technologies.

7

2

8) Figures 3 & 4 are very small, it is difficult for readers

Already rotate figure 5 and make it large also with figure 6 (Updated Figure 5 and 6)

8

2

9) Conclusion should be rewritten to highlight the contributions of this paper.

Updated

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The author's contribution is not highlighted in the abstract section

In the introduction section, what is the author's major contribution? Justify it 

What is the authors' involvement in  Figure 1. Scope of Telehealth Terminology [5].

Figure 1. is repeated. Which one is Figure 1 ? 

This paper technically not sound 

 

 

 

Author Response

No

Reviewer

Comment

Checklist

1

3

The author's contribution is not highlighted in the abstract section

Updated

2

 

In the introduction section, what is the author's major contribution? Justify it

In the introduction, we mentioned about 1.4 Previous Research. In this section, we describe our scope and contribution since the first project started.

3

 

What is the authors' involvement in  Figure 1. Scope of Telehealth Terminology [5].

Our Research is About M-Health where e-health, telehealth, telemedicine, and telecare as a part of M-Health

4

 

Figure 1. is repeated. Which one is Figure 1 ?

Different Figure, I did a mistake in Numbering

 

 

This paper technically not sound

The focus of this research is actually on the design architecture, the deep discussion technically been deeply discussed in 1.4 Previous Research

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your reply.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 

 

Point 1: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required      Response 1: The article manuscript has been checked for grammar by Prof. Dr. Tini Mogea from Manado State University (Professor of English Literature and English Education) E-mail: tinimogea@unima.ac.id

 

Point 2:  Are the results clearly presented       

Response 2:  New Section "5. Testing"

Table 8. Testing Factors.

Figure 9. User Acceptance Testing for Mobile application

 

 

 

Note:

Note (Previous Development):

2021: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/5/2006,

2021: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/10/15/1820

 

Current Project (Diabetes Mobile App and Smart Plate) Next project we will integrate all of this project to help Patients:

Mobile Application: https://github.com/wasim-abbas/Diabetes-Managment-System

Smart Plate: https://github.com/ssh5212/smart-plate

 

Number of Diabetes Patients in Research:

2021: 20 Patients

2022: 40 Patients

Ongoing: 60-80 Patients

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This version is significantly improved compared to the original manuscript. In my opinion, it is eligible for publishing.

A minor revision should be performed is arrange references from low to high according to the content of the paper. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

 

 

Point 1:   I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style       

Response 1:  The article manuscript has been checked for grammar by Prof. Dr. Tini Mogea from Manado State University (Professor of English Literature and English Education) E-mail: tinimogea@unima.ac.id

 

 

Point 2: A minor revision should be performed is arrange references from low to high according to the content of the paper.         

Response 2: Updated using MDPI Format: https://mdpi-res.com/data/mdpi_references_guide_v5.pdf

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The introduction doesn't provide sufficient background and includes all relevant references. Expected the recent literature.

Table.7 ,there are lot of images are there but not numbered ,even not cited in the text .

The author mentioned as 1.4. Previous Research but which research about to discuss ? Its completely hidden . However only theoritical comparision presented in Table.4

Expected comparison from experimental observation ratherthan theoritical prospective

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

 

Point 1:  Moderate English changes required              

Response 1:  The article manuscript has been checked for grammar by Prof. Dr. Tini Mogea from Manado State University (Professor of English Literature and English Education) E-mail: tinimogea@unima.ac.id

 

Point 2:  The introduction doesn't provide sufficient background and includes all relevant references. Expected the recent literature.    

Response 2: Introduction Section already change from the comment of Reviewer 2 Point 1 and I followed the recommendation/ suggested Journal to be added (Review Report Round 1)

 

Point 3: Table.7 ,there are lot of images are there but not numbered ,even not cited in the text .     

Response 3: This is our own application, we don’t take this from others. Table 7 is about the explanation about our mobile application page

Note: Updated the Table

 

Point 4:  The author mentioned as 1.4. Previous Research but which research about to discuss ? Its completely hidden . However only theoritical comparision presented in Table.4    

Response 4: Table 4. Updated to Table 4. Comparison our Previous Work

Our Project:

1. Mobile App: https://github.com/wasim-abbas/Diabetes-Managment-System

2. Smart Plate: https://github.com/ssh5212/smart-plate

 

 

Point 5:   Expected comparison from experimental observation ratherthan theoritical prospective   

Response 5:  New Section 5. Testing

Table 8. Testing Factors.

Figure 9. User Acceptance Testing for Mobile application

 

 

 

Note:

Note (Previous Development):

2021: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/5/2006,

2021: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/10/15/1820

 

Current Project (Diabetes Mobile App and Smart Plate) Next project we will integrate all of this project to help Patients:

Mobile Application: https://github.com/wasim-abbas/Diabetes-Managment-System

Smart Plate: https://github.com/ssh5212/smart-plate

 

Number of Diabetes Patients in Research:

2021: 20 Patients

2022: 40 Patients

Ongoing: 60-80 Patients

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop