Next Article in Journal
Identification of Key Factors Influencing the Choice of the Type of Vaginal Pessary for Women Presenting with Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Semi-Directive Interviews and Development of an Algorithm
Next Article in Special Issue
Gender Difference in the Relationship between Extrapulmonary Factors and Reduced Lung Function in Early Adulthood
Previous Article in Journal
Peripheral Regional Anesthesia Using Local Anesthetics: Old Wine in New Bottles?
Previous Article in Special Issue
LABA/LAMA as First-Line Therapy for COPD: A Summary of the Evidence and Guideline Recommendations
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/jcm12041547
Review Report
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Impulse Oscillometry as a Diagnostic Test for Pulmonary Emphysema in a Clinical Setting

J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(4), 1547; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12041547
by Allan Klitgaard 1,2, Anders Løkke 1,2,* and Ole Hilberg 1,2
Reviewer 2:
José A. Rizzo
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(4), 1547; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12041547
Submission received: 4 January 2023 / Revised: 8 February 2023 / Accepted: 13 February 2023 / Published: 15 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Collection Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: New Treatments and Future Directions)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Introduction: It's ok

Methods:

- More information about the equipment used por BP and IOS

- Population: About 

- About CT scans: How many radiologists interpreted the CTs? Was there more than one radiologist who interpreted the same CT? How was the emphysema's score created or what is it based on? Is it possible to quantify emphysema from CT scans?

Results: Could you add more data on the patients in Table 1, such as other comorbidities, heart disease, pulmonary hypertension? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

As this is a journal for clinicians, I would like to suggest to the authors begin by explaining what COPD is and its phenotypes and then go to the reasons for the need to differentiate the emphysematous phenotype.

Page 3, line 113: Please clarify what is "AIC". 

In the Discussion section, the Authors expose the two main fragilities of the study, i.e. the small study sample and the inclusion of patients with pulmonary symptoms of different causes. This should be stated clearly in the methods, and in the results, and better addressed in the discussion. The idea when reading the paper until this point is that all individuals were COPD patients, either with emphysematous or non-emphysematous phenotypes, discriminated by CT scans.  The other diagnosis should be stated in the results.

Would the authors please comment on the choice of treating the emphysema severity as a binary variable (other than the small number of patients, if there is one) and expose in the results (table 1)  the numbers in mild, moderate, and severe categories and address in discussion how this distribution could affect the results and conclusions? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No further comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors satisfactorily answered the questions.

Back to TopTop