Next Article in Journal
Individual Differences in Aesthetic Preferences for Multi-Sensorial Stimulation
Previous Article in Journal
The Visual Acuity of Rats in Touchscreen Setups
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Vision
Volume 4
Issue 1
10.3390/vision4010005
Review Report
vision-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Case Report
Peer-Review Record

Immunohistochemical Analysis of a Vitreous Membrane Removed from a Patient with Incontinentia Pigmenti-Related Retinal Detachment

Vision 2020, 4(1), 5; https://doi.org/10.3390/vision4010005
by Márta Janáky 1,*, András Hári Kovács 1, Ágnes Jánossy 1, Dóra Török 2, Béla Ivanyi 3, Gábor Braunitzer 4 and György Benedek 5
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Vision 2020, 4(1), 5; https://doi.org/10.3390/vision4010005
Submission received: 20 July 2019 / Revised: 8 November 2019 / Accepted: 24 December 2019 / Published: 2 January 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The case report by Janaky et al. describes the immunohistochemical analysis of the vitreous membrane of the affected eye of a 23-year old patient with incontinentia pigmenti. The case is interesting as only one eye was affected and the other eye was completely unsymptomatic. The analysis showed that several inflammatory markers were present in the membrane.

This case is interesting to clinicians, and I accept it for publication.

Below are just a few minor concerns:

Line 57 - I do not understand the (UH) behind ultrasound. The acronym is not needed and does not appear again in the text.

Line 91 - Nishimura et al. suggested already in 1980 ...

Line 93 - Format of [6]

In the figure legends random letters seem to be underlined

Author Response

Line 57-  the abbreviation for ultrasound (originally in Hungarian, hence UH) is absolutely unnecessary, so it has been deleted. 

Line 93-  the mentioned issue has been fixed

The figure legends have been corrected

 

Once again, we thank you for your suggestions and for the favourable opinion of our work.

Reviewer 2 Report

The submitted case report is well written. The authors analysed an unilateral epiretinal membrane of a young patient with IP using immunhistochemical features of said membrane. They consequently describe the observed immunhistochemical pattern of the membrane. In the discussion they basically acknowledge that their findings are difficult to interpret. It would be interesting to do a quick literature research on previously described immunhistochemical properties of age-related epiretinal membranes. Do such studies exist? Are there studies dealing with immunhistochemical analysis of ERMs in other retinal disorders? What are the immunhistochemical differences between your findings (IP ERMs) and age-related ERMs or ERMs associated with other retinal pathologies? 

101-102: What is your source/reference?

 

 

Author Response

We did an additional literature search to clarify the histochemical properties of epiretinal membranes. Hence we added the reports of Lee et al (Retina) and Sheybani et al (JOphthl InflammInfect) concerning epiretinal membranes in age-related macular degeneration and uveitis, respectively. Similarly, we added a reference to the statement in lines 101-102.

 

Thanks for the useful and helpful suggestions

Back to TopTop