| 查看: 885 | 回复: 1 | ||
xiaoze2003铜虫 (小有名气)
|
[求助]
reviewer在对文章进行详细评述之前，说了一段话，在response中要回应吗？ 已有1人参与
|
|
reviewer在对文章进行详细评述之前，说了一段评述性意见，在response中要回应吗？ 原文如下： Before delving into the paper in detail, I think a few broad concepts need to be revised. First, it should be made clearer that this procedure is only being offered in male patients. Second, my definitions and your definitions of the terms hernia, hydrocele, and patent processus vaginalis seem to be different. You need to clearly define these entities. In my practice, I repair all male pediatric inguinal hernias via a similar laparoscopic approach, but I offer the traditional high-ligation/hydrocelectomy for non-communicating hydroceles that require intervention. It seems as though this paper defines communicating hydroceles and inguinal hernias as the same. That should be better clarified, as it is confusing, and these changes should be reflected throughout the abstract and manuscript. Third, in my practice I do not separate these cases into complicated vs non-complicated based on the number of peritoneal folds. Additionally, throughout the manuscript there is no mention of creating scar to the anterior ring, a concept I find critical in the durability of minimally invasive approaches. And lastly, throughout the abstract and manuscript there is reference to the "standard laparoscopic approach". As of yet, a standard laparoscopic approach does not exist, and it is instead data such as yours that will help us further define the optimal minimally invasive approach to inguinal hernia repair in pediatric males. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
综述论文作为代表作会不会影响评审专家的印象分？
已经有9人回复
-
我的国基提前知道中了，可是同事的操作让我实在接受不了，怎么会有这样的人
已经有6人回复
-
应该是93bebmhtak前后十一个字符比较关键
已经有20人回复
-
2026国自然放榜时间
已经有9人回复
-
这样的filecode谁见过
已经有22人回复
-
据悉今年马上要出结果了
已经有6人回复
-
面上项目filecode邪修
已经有7人回复
-
关于代码变化问题，想知道的进来
已经有22人回复
-
filecode与中标关系的预测
已经有5人回复
-
fileCode有新解读？
已经有18人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
2楼2014-12-15 23:24:32
100