Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The submitted manuscript is a cohort prospective observational clinical study that aims to evaluate the ongoing removal of CVVH of the most common antimicrobial drugs used in our resuscitation and to detect the PK / PD parameters in critically ill patients with AKI.

The major strengths:  

The manuscript deals with a challenging topic of interest in the setting of critically ill patients, with limited data in the literature.

The sample number is adequate. The results and conclusions are consistent; the large discussion is a useful review of the topic.

An extensive bibliography supports the report.

The figures and the tables  are clear

I point out some typing errors

-          Table 1: in the "Mean" column, the commas of the numbers should be corrected with periods

-          Page 5, last paragraph: The dots shown in the figures represent

-          Table 3: the commas of the numbers should be corrected with periods

-          Page 6, last paragraph: Figures 3a and 3b show

-          Page 7, first line:  from 0.76 up to ….. to complete

-          Table 4: the commas of the numbers should be corrected with periods

-          Page 9: The main risk factors for infection undoubtedly include

-          Page 9: …. was Staphylococcous aureus

-          Page 13: Renal replacement….

 

-          Appendix A1: the commas of the numbers should be corrected with periods

Author Response

DEAR REVIEWER THANKS FOR YOUR HELP IN MAKING MY MANUSCRIPT BETTER; I WILL RESPOND YOU IN CAPITAL LETTER.

 

The submitted manuscript is a cohort prospective observational clinical study that aims to evaluate the ongoing removal of CVVH of the most common antimicrobial drugs used in our resuscitation and to detect the PK / PD parameters in critically ill patients with AKI.

The major strengths:  

The manuscript deals with a challenging topic of interest in the setting of critically ill patients, with limited data in the literature.

The sample number is adequate. The results and conclusions are consistent; the large discussion is a useful review of the topic.

An extensive bibliography supports the report.

The figures and the tables  are clear

MY

I point out some typing errors

-          Table 1: in the "Mean" column, the commas of the numbers should be corrected with periods

MADE CORRECTIONS

-          Page 5, last paragraph: The dots shown in the figures represent

MADE CORRECTIONS

-          Table 3: the commas of the numbers should be corrected with periods

MADE CORRECTIONS

-          Page 6, last paragraph: Figures 3a and 3b show

MADE CORRECTIONS

-          Page 7, first line:  from 0.76 up to ….. to complete

MADE CORRECTIONS

-          Table 4: the commas of the numbers should be corrected with periods

MADE CORRECTIONS

-          Page 9: The main risk factors for infection undoubtedly include

MADE CORRECTIONS

-          Page 9: …. was Staphylococcous aureus

MADE CORRECTIONS

-          Page 13: Renal replacement….

MADE CORRECTIONS

 

-          Appendix A1: the commas of the numbers should be corrected with periods

MADE CORRECTIONS

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations to the authors for the work and thanks for allowing me to review it.

The manuscript is presented clearly and is easy to read and understand. The only thing that the authors should do is to homogenize all the remarks at the same tabulation level, define the inclusion and exclusion criteria more formally, and provide a clearer A3 image, since the pdf looks blurry

Author Response

DEAR REVIEWER THANKS FOR YOUR HELP IN MAKING MY MANUSCRIPT BETTER; I WILL RESPOND YOU IN CAPITAL LETTER.

 

The manuscript is presented clearly and is easy to read and understand. The only thing that the authors should do is to homogenize all the remarks at the same tabulation level, define the inclusion and exclusion criteria more formally, and provide a clearer A3 image, since the pdf looks blurry

 

MADE ALL THE CORRECTIONS REQUESTED BY REVIEWER