| 查看: 895 | 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
小白求助 投论文要求的highlights应该如何写
已经有4人回复
-
麻烦专家们看看评委们的意见（F口面上）
已经有12人回复
-
面上函评意见出来了，像什么等级？
已经有14人回复
-
怎么看青基中了没有啊
已经有6人回复
-
国社科又开始会评了，不知道这次命运如何
已经有11人回复
-
有多少人是今天查系统知道结果的？
已经有19人回复
-
基金未中，这种答复是模板吗？
已经有7人回复
-
哪位高人中了，把查询到的截图贴出来让我看看，让我长长见识
已经有7人回复
-
面上意见出来了
已经有23人回复
-
能否申诉？
已经有8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
20
投票:
