Next Article in Journal
Thrombosis and Bleeding Risk Scores Are Strongly Associated with Mortality in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study
Previous Article in Journal
Unraveling the Puzzle: Health Benefits of Probiotics—A Comprehensive Review
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Advanced Insights into Human Uterine Innervation: Implications for Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain

J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(5), 1433; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13051433
by Audrey Astruc 1,2,3,†, Léa Roux 1,2,†, Fabien Robin 4,5,6, Ndeye Racky Sall 2,7, Ludivine Dion 2,8, Vincent Lavoué 2,8, Guillaume Legendre 3, Jean Leveque 2, Thomas Bessede 9, Martin Bertrand 10, Jules Odimba Mpoy 11, Emmanuel Nzau-Ngoma 11, Xavier Morandi 1,7, Alain Chedotal 12, Maela Le Lous 2,7 and Krystel Nyangoh Timoh 1,2,7,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(5), 1433; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13051433
Submission received: 31 December 2023 / Revised: 8 February 2024 / Accepted: 16 February 2024 / Published: 1 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Obstetrics & Gynecology)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

it is a very interesting review. please find my suggestions for minor edits below:

reference editing for line 60 and 291

unhighlight line 347 word interestingly

please add that you excluded animal studies in the materials and methods section

in your research, have you not come through any studies on biochemical markers? If you have excluded them please include in the materials and methods section and also your prisma diagram

there is an extra reference number 20 in the reference list, please edit

please inform why you haven't included studies after march 2022, since it is almost 2 years ago. please include recent research if possible.

have you registered your review to Prospero? Please provide your info

Author Response

Response to the Reviewers:

 

 

First of all, we would like to thank the Editor in Chief and the Reviewers for their comments contributing to improving our manuscript. We have answered all the reviewers’ comments point-by-point and hope that the revised manuscript is now acceptable for publication in JCM.

 

 

To Reviewer n1:

  • “in your research, have you not come through any studies on biochemical markers? If you have excluded them please include in the materials and methods section and also your prisma diagram” Thank you for your remark, we indeed did not include studies on biochemical markers and have therefore corrected it in the Material and methods
  • “please inform why you haven't included studies after march 2022, since it is almost 2 years ago. please include recent research if possible.” We added more recent articles to the review
  • have you registered your review to Prospero? Please provide your info” No we have not.

 

 

To Reviewer n2:

  • «The conclusion are too general and do not add much. What the authors conducted it is quite widely recognized knowledge. It should be rethought and changed. » Thank you for your remark, we have indeed changed the conclusion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, thank you for requesting to provide a review of this article, which topic is insights into human uterine innervation - Implications for Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain

There is a lot unnecessary empty pages and space, as well.

Page 2 is empty. Move introduction up.

Page 3, line 52 - clear space

Page 4. Figure 1 should be under the text.

Page 5, line 109. Write Results instead of Results (3291)

Page 7, line 212. Write distribution instead of Distribution

Page 9, line 291. Add missing reference

Page 10, line 347. Write interestingly instead of Interestingly.

Page 10, line 349. Write 40-44, 47,48 instead of 40, 41, 43, 44, 47, 48

Page 14. Half page is empty. Move next part up.

Except this linguistic errors, reading results about uterine macro and micro innervation (anatomical and functional distribution and functional implication), I have an impression that this part is too detailed with lot of already known knowledge and some parts are duplicated, as well, while part about relationship between neuroanatomy and endometriosis is too short. The number of selected articles in this review is huge enough, while information about link between neuroanatomy, endometriosis and pelvic pain are scarce. Please add more information from the selected articles, their observations and results about this, which is topic of interest of this review.

The conclusion are too general and do not add much. What the authors conducted it is quite widely recognized knowledge. It should be rethought and changed.

This article is written as review, and should be be accepted for publication after this corrections.

Author Response

Response to the Reviewers:

 

 

First of all, we would like to thank the Editor in Chief and the Reviewers for their comments contributing to improving our manuscript. We have answered all the reviewers’ comments point-by-point and hope that the revised manuscript is now acceptable for publication in JCM.

 

 

To Reviewer n1:

  • “in your research, have you not come through any studies on biochemical markers? If you have excluded them please include in the materials and methods section and also your prisma diagram” Thank you for your remark, we indeed did not include studies on biochemical markers and have therefore corrected it in the Material and methods
  • “please inform why you haven't included studies after march 2022, since it is almost 2 years ago. please include recent research if possible.” We added more recent articles to the review
  • have you registered your review to Prospero? Please provide your info” No we have not.

 

 

To Reviewer n2:

  • «The conclusion are too general and do not add much. What the authors conducted it is quite widely recognized knowledge. It should be rethought and changed. » Thank you for your remark, we have indeed changed the conclusion.
Back to TopTop