Urinary Catheter Coating Modifications: The Race against Catheter-Associated Infections
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is a review paper focusing on catheters coatings for antibacterial/antimicrobial property. The manuscript is written in good language.
The manuscript is boring and does not contain strong scientific substance. I suggest adding a mechanism of action of each reviewed coating. In addition, recently few research groups started investigating the use of magnetron sputtering for coating catheters. These coatings showed quasi-instantaneous bacterial inactivation at the catheter surface. This technique should be included in the revised manuscript citing adequate references.
Authors should take caare of plagia, especially in section 5.1.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
See the attached pdf file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript “Urinary catheter coating modifications: the race 2 against infection” is thoughtfully written and was easy to follow. However, there are several reviews in this field and I would like to understand from the authors what are the major contributions or novelty of this review?
I am pointing only some examples from literature :
# 1 J Healthc Eng. 2018 Oct 14;2018:2986742. doi: 10.1155/2018/2986742; #2 Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Sep 23;(9):CD004013. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004013.pub4
#3 Glob Chall. 2017 Dec 27;2(1):1700068. doi: 10.1002/gch2.201700068. #4 Expert Rev Med Devices. 2008 Jul;5(4):495-506. doi: 10.1586/17434440.5.4.495 etc...
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
The present study deals with the evaluation of different coating modifications used for urinary catheters in order to fight against catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI). First of all, I suggest a review of the title in order to state from the title the type of infections that are treated in the manuscript and the manner to fight against them by selecting the appropriate coatings for catheters. Some specific changes in the structure and organization of the manuscript should also be performed in order to improve its quality, as follows:
Lines 57-61: Justification for choosing silicone catheters over latex ones is not clear: “silicone material will be used in those patients with latex allergies since latex will induce cytotoxicity” – there is no connection between cytotoxicity and allergies (if any, please explain); moreover, please explain reason for CDC recommendations.
Line 80: please add reference at the end of the phrase or explain that these materials will be detailed in the following sub chapters.
Lines 170-177: there is no relevance in presenting this study with negative results that do not support the objectives of the study. If any connection with the following studies or with the subject of the manuscript, please explain, if not, please remove.
Line 287: please insert citation
Line 289: please insert , after “Aditionally…”
Line 285-307: please compress in order to make an individual chapter called “Fluoroquinolones”
Line 315: please insert citation
Line 337: please change “done” with “performed”
Line 347: please insert citation at the end of the phrase
Line 361: please add a phrase in order to state that further studies are needed or change the existing one in order to state this fact, it is not clear
Chapter 4.9: please state at the beginning the list of enzymes to be detailed
Line 426: please change the phrase “here are some examples of them” with an adequate phrase in order to state that some of these bacteriophages will be detailed
Line 450: please add a conclusion to this section.
Line 494: please state a conclusion or a perspective for combined therapies
Each section corresponding to each type of coating should contain a context, the explanation and the conclusion of the section. Please make sure that every section is explained in this manner in every section.
Conclusion section is too long. It should be shortened and it should not contain neither bibliographic references, nor experimental conditions. Please transform this section into a possible Discussion section and add only one paragraph as the Conclusions. Where necessary, please explain the reason for presenting experimental conditions. Conclusions should contain perspectives and a comparison between the detailed types of coatings, stating the most relevant and used ones, especially in the clinical practice or others that are in advanced stages of research or proved promising results.
Line 501: please change “150 revolution per minute (rpm)” with “150 rotation per minute (rpm)”,
Moreover, authors should correct minor writing errors: e.g. before “and” you cannot put a comma (,) and a language check should also be performed.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
The manuscript presented for evaluation is a review regarding the use of coating modification in order to avoid bacterial infections. This is a general and important subject and deserve discussion and attention. The topic is limited to the urinary cateters, however it will drain scientific attention due to the compilation of the important literature data in one review. I think that is important to state also in the abstract that is a review and maybe the span of time covered or (if it is) the last review published on this subject. The authors done a good job, the manuscript is easily followed and shows in a concise way the approaching to restrict CAUTI and the types of coating used in the literature. The conclusions are adequate and supported by the main text. The review has 126 references, that make it of interest for scientist working on this subject. I believe that it can be published as it is.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors made the suggested improvements. The manuscript is acceptable in its present form.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed all the reviewer’s suggestions. The manuscript has been extensively improved. Therefore, the manuscript can be published in the current form.
