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.
Thank you for the opportunity to review your excellent work!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Stefano Menini, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comment
No comment
No comment
The paper is acceptable at current version.
The paper is acceptable at current version.
The paper is acceptable at current version.
The paper is acceptable at current version.
I had no suggestions previously.
I had no suggestions previously.
I had no suggestions previously.
I had no suggestions previously.
In the authors' response, they stated their paper strengths and limitations below, please adding these statements in the revised manuscript.
The correlations between the various ECG criteria were not calculated during this study, as it was planned for a future study of the Seamens’ Sign. With regards to this study though, given that the ECG criteria to evaluate LVH yield qualitative results, we believe that the comparison of the sensitivities and specificities is adequate since the various test methods are calculated for each patient against the TTE for each individual patient, which was defined as the gold standard in our manuscript.
When I reviewed the original of this paper. I detected a huge amount of previously published materials published elsewhere by the same group of authors. It was not clearly said that it was not a peer-reviwed material, which was ok to submit. So, my criticism is chiefly to the journal. The authors' work seems fit for the publication.
The authors' work seems fit for the publication.
The authors' work seems fit for the publication.
The authors' work seems fit for the publication.
As prior comments
As prior comments
As prior comments.
In the authors' response, they stated their paper strengths and limitations below, please adding these statements in the revised manuscript.
The correlations between the various ECG criteria were not calculated during this study, as it was planned for a future study of the Seamens’ Sign. With regards to this study though, given that the ECG criteria to evaluate LVH yield qualitative results, we believe that the comparison of the sensitivities and specificities is adequate since the various test methods are calculated for each patient against the TTE for each individual patient, which was defined as the gold standard in our manuscript.
I feel this submission is acceptable
I feel this submission is acceptable
I feel this submission is acceptable
I feel this submission is acceptable
Please address all concerns and criticisms thoroughly.
[# 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. #]
Academic reporting of cases is generally reserved for bedside case presentations (usually not mentioned in the standard textbooks) do not catch enough attention to warrant publication. This article is definitely not one such.
no comment
Any possible impact of this novel clinical finding is hard to predict as it depebds upon post it might find in every-day work. However, the method of presentation is clear and straightforward enough to permit replication.
No comment
No comment
No comment
Well prepared, clear and effectively structured article.
1. Dr. Walker and colleagues developed a novel, quick, easy to use ECG screening criterion (Seamens’ Sign) for LVH. This new criterion was defined as the presence of QRS complexes touching or overlapping in two contiguous precordial leads. When compared to both the Sokolow-Lyon criteria and the Cornell criterion for men, Seamens’ Sign is noninferior in ruling in LVH on ECG. Additionally, Seamens’ Sign has higher inter-rater agreement compared to both Sokolow-Lyon criteria as well as the Cornell criteria for men and women.
2. The English writing is well.
3. The literature reviews are comprehensive.
4. Raw data were shared.
1. The study design was acceptable.
2. In the methods, the authors reported a high prevalence of echocardiographic LVH "35%", but did not mention the quantitative definition for echocardiographic LVH, possibly leading to a bias.
3. There were no baseline profiles of the patients, i.e. hypertension which might limit the applications.
4. I would like to see the correlations between various ECG criteria and Seamens sign for LVH. For instance, what are the consistency rates between Sokolow-Lyon (+) and Seamens sign (+) as well as Sokolow-Lyon (-) and Seamens sign (-)..... And what are the additional advantages of Seamens sign on the other ECG criteria for echocardiographic LVH?
1. The sensitivity and specificity using Sokolow-Lyon and Cornell ECG-based criteria were close to prior studies.
2. The PPV and NPV were low, limiting the applications.
In the current ECG machine, there are automatic interpretation software for LVH interpretation according to various ECG criteria, which could be helpful to the physicians and the utilization of Seamens signs might be limited.
At first, this appeared as a decently written manuscript that would
find its way quite easily. ¸Unfortunately, I distinctly remembered that I have read this paper before.
-
-
-
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.