| 查看: 3376 | 回复: 10 | |||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | |||
[求助]
accept with major revision 但意见不多
|
|||
|
Dear Dr Peng, I regret to inform you that your work can be reconsidered for publication only with extensive revisions to your manuscript. The reviewers' advice on the necessary revisions and their comments are appended below. If you are willing to undertake the required amendments, please submit a point by point response listing your changes or justifications to the reviewers' comments when you submit the revised manuscript. With warm regards, Toshio Kitamura Reviewers' comments: A Editorial Board This study, which is carefully performed, is an interesting one. Both reviewers recognized some merit in this paper. Please carefully respond all concerns raised by the reviewers. I have one minor concern Regarding statistic p values, the authors should described them as more accurate number (for example <0.001) instead of 0.00. Reviewer #1: This paper describes the long-term effects of laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) for patients with chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). They also tried to determine the predictive factors for promising hematological outcomes. Along with the advancement in some new drugs including rituximab and thrombopoietin receptor agonists, it is important to re-examine and analyze the long-term effects of LS and the predictive factors for good outcomes. Major issues 1. They retrospectively analyzed the data in 92 patients who underwent LS for chronic ITP. Their remission rate (76.1%) is relatively favorable and indicated that LS is still one of the treatment options for chronic ITP even in an era of new drugs. 2. Using multivariate logistic regression analysis, they showed that only the platelet counts on postoperative months 3 (POM3) was a significant independent prognostic factor for long-time response to LS. This information is also useful to estimate the long-time response for each patient. 3. The authors previously reported about LS for ITP patients (ref 11, Int J Hematol 94:533-538) . In this paper, they analysed 10 ITP patients who underwent LS because of severe thrombocytopenia, from April 2006 to Jan 2011. They have to make clear whether these 10 patients were overlapped with 92 (from Nov 2006 to Aug 2012) patients in the current report or not. 4. They mentioned that one patient has died of severe pulmonary infection after LS on POD 5. I want to know whether this patient was suffered by overwhelming postsplenectomy infection (OPSI). It is also interesting to know whether these patients were given pneumococcal vaccine around LS in their institute. Minor issues 1. In Table 2, they use abbreviated words "RG" and "NG". They should indicate what these abbreviations stand for. Reviewer #2: The authors described the clinical research entitled predictive factors associated with long-term effects of laparoscopic splenectomy for chronic immune thrombocytopenia. In this paper, they clearly demonstrated that platelet count on POM3 was significant independent predictor of long-term favorable outcome. Their conclusions are almost acceptable, however, several questions are raised up as below. 1) Several investigators already reported that young patients showed higher CR responses of splenectomy than those in elderly patients. However, CR rate in this paper was thought to be lower (53.3 %) than expected. 2) It was reported that the good response to IVIG might be available for predictor of successful splenectomy. Did you check this phenomenon in your study? 3) The importance of platelet raise after splenectomy was already well known in hematologists. Some papers reported POM 1 was available as predictable indicator.However, you mentioned the POM3 was significant, not POM 1. You should explain the reason on 求助。有戏没？？？彻夜难眠55555555555 |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
有多少人是今天查系统知道结果的？
已经有19人回复
-
29号明天会评吗
已经有4人回复
-
国社科又开始会评了，不知道这次命运如何
已经有10人回复
-
梦想
已经有4人回复
-
中青基了要发朋友圈吗？
已经有6人回复
-
基金不中，共勉
已经有12人回复
-
能否申诉？
已经有7人回复
-
面上意见出来了
已经有19人回复
-
为什么到现在没收到通知？
已经有5人回复
-
有没有仍没收到信息的
已经有8人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 投稿从没人审稿——Reject——Major——Minor——Major——Accept
已经有14人回复
- JAPS投稿疑问，只有一个审稿人意见，但是是major revision
已经有11人回复
- 投稿状态是拒稿，但编辑部给了个 Major Revision，这是什么情况，请大家给个意见啊
已经有10人回复
- 这种minor revision是不是相当于接收了，有必要再润色吗？
已经有10人回复
- 审稿人给出的意见是extensive English revision，这是让我大范围修改语言吗？
已经有17人回复
- 一篇重投的文章收到一个“accept”和两个“major revision”，结果被拒
已经有14人回复
- SCI投稿过程总结
已经有124人回复
- 初次投稿IEEE 需要major revision 大家给点意见？
已经有7人回复
- major revision后直接接收的可能性有多大？
已经有8人回复
- Process Biochemistry 后 accept after major revision
已经有13人回复
- major revision 大家看有希望吗
已经有9人回复
- major revision完事后，几天能收到意见~
已经有23人回复
- 求助，accept with minor revision，该怎么修改？
已经有7人回复
- Major Revision机会还大不？
已经有31人回复
- 一篇文章major revision后，审稿意见已经回来1周了，还是没有消息
已经有23人回复
- major revision 后该怎么办？
已经有16人回复
3楼2013-03-14 10:53:49
fsmyn
木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 61 (初中生)
- 金币: 4766.6
- 散金: 11
- 红花: 1
- 帖子: 709
- 在线: 1319.9小时
- 虫号: 1538563
- 注册: 2011-12-15
- 专业: 信号理论与信号处理
2楼2013-03-14 10:51:37
janesonimr
至尊木虫 (知名作家)
- 应助: 14 (小学生)
- 贵宾: 0.001
- 金币: 51579.9
- 散金: 154
- 红花: 62
- 沙发: 1
- 帖子: 6971
- 在线: 1127.3小时
- 虫号: 1245030
- 注册: 2011-03-25
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 金属非晶态、准晶和纳米晶
4楼2013-03-14 10:54:15
nono2009
超级版主 (文学泰斗)
No gains, no pains.
-
专家经验: +21105 - SEPI: 10
- 应助: 28684 (院士)
- 贵宾: 513.911
- 金币: 2555230
- 散金: 27828
- 红花: 2148
- 沙发: 66666
- 帖子: 1602255
- 在线: 65200.9小时
- 虫号: 827383
- 注册: 2009-08-13
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 工程热物理与能源利用
- 管辖: 科研家筹备委员会
5楼2013-03-14 11:52:11
10