Aberrances of the Wound Healing Process: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Technical Questions and Suggestions
1. Therapeutic Approaches
Which keloid/hypertrophic scar types respond best to therapies like corticosteroids, PRP, or laser?
Are any combinations (e.g., corticosteroids + 5FU) considered firstline treatments?
2. Genetic Aspects
Could targeted genetic screenings benefit certain demographics?
Separate genetic and environmental factors to enhance clarity.
3. Emerging Treatments
Briefly mention accessibility and costs for treatments like stem cell therapy and advanced lasers.
Which experimental treatments show promise for future clinical standardization?
4. Structure and Flow
Organize by “Invasive,” “NonInvasive,” and “Emerging” treatments for clarity.
Add a brief intro before Table 1 to clarify its relevance.
5. Visual Elements
Flowchart for Treatments: Include a flowchart showing the progression from conservative to aggressive therapies.
Figures 1 & 2: Describe the purpose of these figures briefly in the text.
6. Clarity and Readability
Specify if prevalence data refer to chemotherapy related wounds or general cases.
Use bullets or subsections to clarify wound healing stages.
7. Explanations of Technical Terms
Simplify SNP and genetic pathway details for broader accessibility.
Define terms like NPWT, PRP, and HBOT or add a glossary.
8. Grammar and Consistency
Correct minor typos and adjust for smoother readability.
9. Conclusion & Abstract
Add a brief call to action on future research in wound healing.
Refocus on key takeaways, keeping it concise and impactful.
over all"
The manuscript provides a well-rounded review of wound healing, focusing on chronic wounds, keloids, and hypertrophic scars, and thoroughly explores current and emerging therapeutic options. To enhance its readability and impact, minor revisions are recommended, including organizing therapies into categories (invasive, non-invasive, emerging) to improve structure, expanding on patient profiles for specific therapies, and simplifying the discussion of genetic pathways for clarity. Additionally, incorporating brief explanations for figures, a glossary for technical terms, and a flowchart summarizing treatment progression could aid reader comprehension. These refinements would strengthen the manuscript’s presentation and readiness for the next stage of review.
Suggession:
1. Table comparing characteristics of keloid and hypertrophic scars, such as location, collagen structure, and treatment response.
2. Table listing therapies with patient profiles, efficacy, side effects, and recurrence rates.
3. Flowchart illustrating wound healing phases, showing key events in each stage.
4. Diagram comparing normal skin, keloid, and hypertrophic scar structures to highlight tissue differences.
can be considered to include in the script
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1. Include a clear section on selection criteria, databases searched, and inclusion/exclusion criteria
2. The manuscript addresses complex processes such as the principal events in wound healing, alterations in normal wound healing, and the pathophysiology of scars. However, it includes only two clinical images (a venous ulcer and a keloid) and one table comparing hypertrophic and keloid scars, which is adapted from a publicly available resource. This is insufficient for an academic paper. Include more original and relevant figures or tables to synthesize the key concepts discussed. For example a figure or flowchart illustrating the mechanisms and stages of wound healing.
3. Subtitles such as "Genetically Induced Keloids" and "Therapies for Keloids" are not numbered, which disrupts the structural consistency of the manuscript.
4. I strongly suggest that you manuscript contains a section about antimicrobial biomaterials for chronic wound care, which is a critical area of current clinical practice and medical research. Please see this paper: Miron, A.; Giurcaneanu, C.; Mihai, M.M.; Beiu, C.; Voiculescu, V.M.; Popescu, M.N.; Soare, E.; Popa, L.G. Antimicrobial Biomaterials for Chronic Wound Care. Pharmaceutics 2023, 15, 1606. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics15061606
5. A dedicated "Limitations" section should be added to acknowledge potential shortcomings, such as lack of systematic methodology in the review process.
6. The abstract is overly general and does not reflect the specific content of the review. It should provide a concise yet detailed summary of the key topics discussed.
Author Response
Please see the attachments
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have reviewed the revised version of the manuscript and I am pleased to confirm that the authors have addressed all my comments and concerns effectively. I recommend the paper for publication in its current form.
