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.
Dear authors,
Congratulations. Your manuscript is now accepted for publication. Best wishes
Thank you for the corrections that tremendously improved the manuscript. There are several minor corrections are still needed: 1) Please rephrase all the sentences with the words "we" and "they" (try to avoid in scientific writing); 2) A few places in the Introduction need references (please refer the file); 3) Please include the prevalence of injuries with the current techniques in the Introduction; 4) A citation at line 403 has no year (please include year); 5) Please follow the journal format of citation as per yellow highlight; 6) Minor spelling and grammar as highlighted in the manuscript. Thank you
The article meets the standards of the journal
no comment
no comment
The article can be published in its current form
Dear Authors,
Please try to address all comments with corrections or rebuttals.
Please pay attention to the experimental design involving the search strategy, comments about the validity of the findings, evidence for the conclusions, and other important issues.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
Well done to the authors for an interesting review. Overall it is well written and supplemented with comprehensive summary tables, clear figures and relevant references.
Proposed improvements:
1. The results and discussion in the abstract is too general. Authors may consider to specifically state the important findings from the literature review.
2. The result section can be improved with a descriptive summary of selected article types and parameters of interest (i.e nerve, approach, etc.) at the beginning of this section.
The design of this study is acceptable for a literature review.
For improvement:
1. In view of an almost similar literature search process according to PRISMA protocol, authors may add a flow chart (diagram) to show the process of literature selection.
The findings from the literature review are well summarized and reported. Excellent summary tables.
Additional comments:
1. Additional diagram on ultra sound application at the oral and maxillofacial region can be considered.
2. Brief discussion on study limitation is also valuable. This can be supplemented with a summary table of level of evidence for each selected article. Another alternative is to add column for 'Level of Evidence' next to 'Authors' column in all 3 tables.
3. Minor typographic error: 'In palne' in table 1 (first row).
Please correct the grammar. Commas are used injudiciously throughout the text.
The search strategy for the articles is not very clear. "Most of the papers were published after 2010" the statement is very subjective. Please rewrite it objectively.
Intra oral approach – inferior alveolar nerve. The authors have relied on insufficient evidence to conclude that there is limited utility in using ultrasound guided nerve block of inferior alveolar nerve. It is better to stress on the paucity of clinical studies while concluding the same.
There is insufficient information regarding the type of ultrasound probe and the frequency used in these studies
The article is well written and in professional English.
The review have covered a wide range of the area and does not need any amendments or changes.
The article have reviewed the relevant papers and succeed to come up with a solid coherent article.
Findings and conclusions are well stated.
I highly recommend this article for publication.
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.