Next Article in Journal
Dosing Colistimethate Every 8 h Results in Higher Plasma Concentrations of Active Colistin Than Every 12-Hourly Dosing without Increase in Nephrotoxicity: A Phase 1 Pharmacokinetics Trial in Healthy Adult Volunteers
Previous Article in Journal
Bovine Respiratory Disease: Conventional to Culture-Independent Approaches to Studying Antimicrobial Resistance in North America
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Anti-Caries Effect of a Mouthwash Containing Sambucus williamsii var. coreana Extract: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

Antibiotics 2022, 11(4), 488; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11040488
by Yu-Rin Kim 1 and Seoul-Hee Nam 2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Antibiotics 2022, 11(4), 488; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11040488
Submission received: 17 March 2022 / Revised: 1 April 2022 / Accepted: 4 April 2022 / Published: 5 April 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper deserves to be published. However, it would be relevant to specify wether a random drawing was done over a larger population before to constitute the final sample size after the exclusion process was effective. Is it possible to motivate ?

Author Response

We appreciate the review of the manuscript, and have been revised and changed according to the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract: well written

Line 33: write the value from OECD and the value from Korea.

Line 70: re-write the aim. You have a RCT as a study. This should be outlined here as well.

Line 76: organise M&M chapter with subchapters that are in line with the structure of a RCT paper protocol. (you may find additional information in CONSORT protocol) (This link might help you https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282353121_A_guide_to_performing_a_peer_review_of_randomised_controlled_trials/figures?lo=1)

No need for figure 2. May be deleted.

Results chapter and Discussion should be organised as well. Inspiration from CONSORT protocol mentioned above. (there are points that are missing here from the Consort list; consult it and then improve your paper.

In the discussion chapter you should make comparisons with other mouthwashes )

Conclusion: well written.

 

Author Response

We appreciate the review of the manuscript, and have been revised and changed according to the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors did an interesting study and the findings on the antibacterial properties of Sambucus williamsii var. coreana extract provide important insights to researchers in the field of caries and also periodontal diseases. However despite an apparently well-designed methodology there are some aspects that can, impact the significance of the results to their full potential.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We appreciate the review of the manuscript, and have been revised and changed according to the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop