Lung Ultrasonography Accuracy for Diagnosis of Adult Pneumonia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
, Abhijay B. Shah 1,†, Joseph Rem C. Dela 2,†, Tayba A. Mugibel 3,4,*,†, Khalid M. Sumaily 5,†, Essa M. Sabi 5,†, Ahmed H. Mujamammi 5,†, Maria E. Malafi 6,†, Sara A. Alkaff 3,4,†, Thurya A. Alwahbi 3,4,†, Jamal O. Bahabara 7,†and Lotfi S. Bin Dahman 4,8,†Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to check your article titled "Lung Ultrasonography Accuracy for Diagnosis of Adult Pneumonia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis". It's very interesting and useful topics for evaluation of respiratory disease. The usefulness of ultrasonography is a topic that has received much attention recently, and the minimally invasive examination, which does not involve radiation-like exposure, is very appealing. In addition, ultrasonography has a high sensitivity and specificity with respect to the cardiac and abdomen, and has reigned as the standard test for many years. Recently, the usefulness of lung ultrasonography has been discussed, and we believe that it is very useful in the emergency room as well as in other clinical fields.
You described the useful of LUS as a systematic review and meta analysis. I don't have any revises and comments because that's reasonable. I dare say that the figures are very difficult to understand. I think it is important to improve the figures to make them a little easier to understand. Would you like to improve them.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted file.
We agree with this comment. Therefore, we understand the issues with the images hence. [Figure 2 and 4 in the file has been removed (Sensitivity-specificity and SROC) and has been replaced by 3 images (Forest Plot for Sensitivity, Forest Plot for Specificity and SROC) from a different software which might be easier on the eye and easier to understand]. You can see the changes in the revised manuscript – page number 5 and 7, line 161-163-164-165-178-179-180. Please let us know any other changes and we would be happy to make those corrections.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Although it is a topic of great interest in recent years, this review is welcome, bringing arguments for the widespread use of lung ultrasound. The advantages and limits of the method as well as its usefulness in clinical practice are pointed out.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.
Comment 1: Although it is a topic of great interest in recent years, this review is welcome, bringing arguments for the widespread use of lung ultrasound. The advantages and limits of the method as well as its usefulness in clinical practice are pointed out.
Response 1:
Thank you for your comments and your alignment with our manuscript.
