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 July 13th, 2015 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on August 19th, 2015.
  • The first revision was submitted on October 13th, 2015 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on November 3rd, 2015 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on November 6th, 2015.

Version 0.3 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

The revised manuscript addresses the concerns from the reviewers and editor. Please ensure the electronic figures are of production quality.

Download author's response letter (v0.3) - submitted Nov 3, 2015

Version 0.2

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

The revised manuscript address most of the concerns from the reviewers. I have a general concern: Supposing the majority of patients are from Japan, is there any necessary to discuss about the similar cohort from different ethnic group or genetic group. Additonally, the results section is a little short. I would recommend to combine the results and discussion together if possible. The conclusion is neat. It will be better to highlight the main discovery from your study.

Download author's response letter (v0.2) - submitted Oct 13, 2015

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

You will see that, while they find your work of interest, they have raised several serious points that need to be addressed by a major revision.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Please see the attachment. Thanks!

Experimental design

Please see the attachment. Thanks!

Validity of the findings

Please see the attachment. Thanks!

Additional comments

Please see the attachment. Thanks!

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.
Cite this review as

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The manuscript by Makoto et al. proposed to use pH analysis to predict the therapy response in pulmonary tuberculosis. The general ideas are promising.

Experimental design

The experimental design is accurate for the research.

Validity of the findings

No Comments.

Additional comments

I have a few concerns as below:
1) It will be better to specify the exact clinical application in conclusion section, not just mention the pH analysis is useful. For example, For a specific age group or gender, this method is useful.
2) Please specify why use MedCalc for the statistical analysis. What is the advantage of this tool comparing to other open source software.
3) Because the individual difference of samples is too big, it is not appropriate to use one-way ANOVA.
4) Because the sample size is small, the conclusion may be not sure.

Cite this review as
- submitted Jul 13, 2015

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.