Evaluating the Bias of Two Point-of-Care Glucometers for Calves and Ewes: Awareness for Ruminant Practitioners

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This was a well written manuscript on a well designed study. The topic is an important consideration for large animal clinicians and the authors did a good job scientifically analyzing the options available. 

I have a few comments for clarification that may need to be addressed. 

Lines 108-109 and 149-150, the authors write "samples were analyzed for correlation"- If you did a Pearson correlation, can you please indicate that? I am assuming so with the next line "if the Pearson r value" but please clarify the statistical analysis that was done. 

Line 300- "If validates reference ranges for each device exist...", can you please reword this?  I think I know what you are trying to say but it is an awkward sentence. 

The graphs are easy to understand. Your conclusions are good and supported. I agree with your limitations and would encourage you to do more in the future. Nice job!

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer comments for manuscript ID ruminants entitled -3029765 entitled ‘Evaluating the bias of two point of care glucometers for calves and ewes: Awareness for ruminant practitioners’

General comments

Use of point of care devices in Ruminant medicine is common and is very useful for field based diagnostics like glucose, ketone bodies and total protein estimation. These devices have proven to be accurate and cost effective in the diagnostic arsenal of field veterinarians. However, most of these devices are designed and calibrated for canine and feline patients and their use in diagnostics for ruminants is wrought with errors and bias unless proper evaluation  and calibration is done on a large number of samples. The present manuscript is an interesting and very relevant study on the evaluation of bias while using glucometers for calves and ewes that are calibrated for felines and canines. The manuscript is flawlessly written with excellent details of methodology and results. Statistical analysis is accurate and robust for the data generated in the study. Discussion is relevant, brief and correlates nicely with the results with benchmarks for future research. I must admit I did not find any errors in the writing and English usage. I would like the authors to emphasize that funding is needed for developing species specific point of care devices so that bias and unethical business practices are avoided.

Specific comments

Lines 68-158: The protocols for both the species were similar. The material methods should be combined as most of them are repetitions, for the sake of brevity with time points blood collection differences being highlighted.

Lines 345-47: Please acknowledge support for the study if any.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Evaluating the bias of two point of care glucometers for calves 2 and ewes: Awareness for ruminant practitioners” compared the analytical performance of two commercial glucometers previously validated for feline & canine use and to observe the differences in blood glucose concentration using these two assays in healthy calves and ewes.

Abstract: Clearly state the objectives

Introduction: Needs improvement. The hypothesis has to be clearly defined. The objectives should be straight forward. It is very confusing as of now. I request the authors to re write the introduction section with appropriate justification and clearly stated objectives.

Materials & Methods: clearly written

Results: Clearly written

Discussion: The results were well discussed and justifies the study with potential relevant references

There are lot of minor mistakes such as repletion of words etc. The authors must proof read the manuscript thoroughly. Eg. Two days in line 122

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf