Next Article in Journal
Prevalence and Risk Factors of Infection with High Risk Human Papilloma Viruses among HIV-Positive Women with Clinical Manifestations of Tuberculosis in a Middle-Income Country
Previous Article in Journal
Estrogen-Like Effect of Mitotane Explained by Its Agonist Activity on Estrogen Receptor-α
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Chronic Glaucoma Using Biodegradable Microspheres to Induce Intraocular Pressure Elevation. Six-Month Follow-Up

Biomedicines 2021, 9(6), 682; https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines9060682
by Maria Jesus Rodrigo 1,2,†, David Garcia-Herranz 2,3,†, Manuel Subias 1, Teresa Martinez-Rincón 1, Silvia Mendez-Martínez 1, Irene Bravo-Osuna 2,3, Ana Carretero 2,4, Jesús Ruberte 2,4, Julián Garcia-Feijoo 2,5, Luis Emilio Pablo 1,2, Rocío Herrero-Vanrell 2,3 and Elena Garcia-Martin 1,2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Biomedicines 2021, 9(6), 682; https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines9060682
Submission received: 13 May 2021 / Revised: 5 June 2021 / Accepted: 11 June 2021 / Published: 16 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Topic Animal Model in Biomedical Research)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments are provided in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

See attached file 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors compared two rat models for glaucoma. This study is well designed and conducted. I only have a few comments:

  1. Bonferroni correction is probably too harsh as the those comparisons are not totally random. False discovery rate correction probably can give better results.
  2. Maybe the authors can further perform survival analyses with some thresholds to define glaucoma or ocular hypertension.
  3. If the authors could further test and compare the rat's response to light stimuli between the two models, the models will be more convincing.
  4. Three decimal digits precision is unnecessary. In most cases, you only need two decimal digits.

Author Response

See attached file 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all the review questions

Back to TopTop