Review History


All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.

Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on September 7th, 2020 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on November 13th, 2020.
  • The first revision was submitted on January 13th, 2021 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on January 20th, 2021.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Jan 20, 2021 · Academic Editor

Accept

The reviewers comments have been adequately addressed in this version.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Nov 13, 2020 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

While the reviewers felt your paper was interesting, one reviewer was concerned that it added little to the field. I would recommend paying particular attention to the rationale for your study and how it addresses gaps in the research.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The language is clear and adequate
The literature references are comprehensive
The article is well structures and also the figures are informative
The results although well presented are not very striking

Experimental design

The study design is already proposed in different paper and do not add any novelty

Validity of the findings

The study is not quite original because several previous papers have address this issue and with a number of patients more relevant.

Additional comments

The paper is of some interest but not quite original because this issue have been raised but other studies although not all of them were univocal.
To increase the meaning I would suggest to do a review of all the studies so far reported focusing on similarities, limitations and include these data

·

Basic reporting

No comment

Experimental design

No comments

Validity of the findings

No comments

Additional comments

Very interesting article giving important information on utility of MRI in muscular involvement in Pompe disease.
A very important information is that CSA correlate well with muscular strength and could be a practical tool in order to follow therapeutics effectiveness.
I just regret that the follow up period and the time frame for enzymotherapy treatment is a little short.
I could be realy relevant to have more date over a longer period.

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.