Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Grazia D’Onofrio 1,*,†,
  • Antonio Izzi 2,† and
  • Alfredo Del Gaudio 2
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Nitasha Mishra Reviewer 2: Kohei Godai

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reporting of protocols should be as per SPIRIT guidelines. the manuscript needs extensive correction based on above guidelines. many importnatmparts are missing : aims and objectives, trial design, randomization, blinding, allocation concealment, sample size calculation, intervention groups. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf


Author Response

Thanks to the Reviewer for his/her observation. We clarify that the manuscript is a procedure already routinely used in our hospital for patients who undergo awake surgery craniotomy. Our manuscript is not a clinical trial. We want to tell and share our experience about the anesthetic procedure during a particular operative circumstance such as awake surgery.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors describe protocol for awake craniotomy, but not a clinical trial. The authors submitted the manuscript as an article. I do not think the manuscript is a clinical trial. The authors do not show any hypothesis, patients, or data. 

None

Author Response

Thanks to the Reviewer for his/her observation. We clarify that the manuscript is a procedure already routinely used in our hospital for patients who undergo awake surgery craniotomy. Our manuscript is not a clinical trial. We want to tell and share our experience about the anesthetic procedure during a particular operative circumstance such as awake surgery.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Honestly, I do not understand why the authors submitted the manuscript. This is not a research article. Are the authors trying to submit review or protocol? Please clarify the article type.

None.

Author Response

Honestly, I do not understand why the authors submitted the manuscript. This is not a research article. Are the authors trying to submit review or protocol? Please clarify the article type.

According to the reviewer observation, we clarified that the manuscript is a protocol on the header of the sheet.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

I reviewed the manuscript. My review comments are below.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe that the manuscript is acceptable if extensive English editing is done. Also, I have several minor comments.

Minor comments

#1. It appears that the English check of the present version has been done by a person not familiar with the contents, and there are numerous sentences that are grammatically correct, but have awkward meaning.

#2. I do not think informed consent is necessary in protocol (Page 2, Line 64).

#3. I do not think Figures 1 and 2 are necessary.

#4. Please discuss one theme in one paragraph in the discussion. First three paragraphs are too short and fourth is too long.

#5. Conclusion is redundant. Please shorten.

It appears that the English check of the present version has been done by a person not familiar with the contents, and there are numerous sentences that are grammatically correct, but have awkward meaning.

Author Response

I reviewed the manuscript. My review comments are below.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We thank the Reviewer for his/her thoughtful and constructive comments. We have addressed each of the issues raised and have highlighted the relevant revisions in the manuscript itself. Below, please find item-by-item responses to the Reviewer’s comments, which are included verbatim.

 

I believe that the manuscript is acceptable if extensive English editing is done. Also, I have several minor comments.

According to reviewer suggestion, we re-obtained a review of the manuscript from a native English speaker.

 

Minor comments

#1. It appears that the English check of the present version has been done by a person not familiar with the contents, and there are numerous sentences that are grammatically correct, but have awkward meaning.

  1. As suggested by reviewer, an anesthesiologist and a neurosurgeon reviewed the text.

 

#2. I do not think informed consent is necessary in protocol (Page 2, Line 64).

  1. We deleted the informed consent citation at Page 2, Line 64, as recommended.

 

#3. I do not think Figures 1 and 2 are necessary.

  1. We deleted the aforesaid figures.

 

#4. Please discuss one theme in one paragraph in the discussion. First three paragraphs are too short and fourth is too long.

  1. In the Discussion section, we distributed the paragraphs, as recommended.

 

#5. Conclusion is redundant. Please shorten.

  1. According to reviewer, we have summarized the Conclusion section, deleting redundant sentences.