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 Dr. Zhang,
Thank you for submitting the revised manuscript addressing all the reviewers' comments. After getting back the responses from the reviewers, I am happy to let you know that the manuscript has been accepted for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Celine Gallagher, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comments
No comments
No comments
After re-reviewing this manuscript, I would accept this for publication in its current revised form.
Thanks to the authors for addressing the comments raised by all the reviewers and submitting the revised manuscript. I don't have any additional comments.
All the research questions were well defined.
Conclusion drawn from the results were well stated.
No more additional comments. Thanks.
Dear Dr. Zhang,
Thank you for your submission to PeerJ. Your article requires a few Minor Revisions as per the comments of the 2 reviewers
Warm regards,
Ripon Sarkar
Academic Editor
PeerJ Life & Environment
Comments to the authors:
Methods:
1. Line 64-66: It is not clear what does it mean by “13 lost to follow up”. Are they dying before follow-up or are authors lacking their information? What was the final number of males and females who entered into follow-up?
Introduction:
1. In the introduction authors mention the link between CKD and Cardiac malfunctions as well as methods of Cardiac health assessments. However, authors do not properly mention the importance of this study.
-The authors should clearly mention the novelty of the study and the motivation to conduct this study in the introduction section.
2. line 37-39: “Echocardiography is crucial for assessing the cardiac structure and function in CKD patients, serving as a key diagnostic tool in clinical settings, despite its limitations”.
- Authors should provide references.
- Authors should mention a few limitations of Echocardiography as a diagnostic tool in CKD patients.
Results:
1. The authors just throw their findings in the result section. Please provide a rationale for choosing each parameter, and measurement; also make a conclusive finding from each figure or table.
2. Line 121-122: Included in the study were 77 patients diagnosed with end-stage chronic kidney disease, with a mean age of 54 ± 14 years and 45% female.
- It is not clear. The author should rewrite this sentence.
3. Every table legend is ‘Table 1’. The authors should change that.
4. Line 125-126: It is better if authors add a few sentences about the basis of their grouping. Why they chose LVGLS -15.2%. Provide a few sentences about the risk of lower and higher LVGLS.
No comment
No comment
Reviewer’s comments:
The article entitled “Prognostic value of left ventricular structure and strain in chronic kidney disease patients by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging” by Zhang et al is well written and relevant to the field. However, there are certain issues which need to be addressed.
1. Please clearly mention whether table 1 depicted the baseline characteristics of the patients or it was the end point characteristics.
2. Was there any history of medication like antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation therapy, ACE inhibitors or statins in the patients?
3. How many of the patients had kidney transplants and how many on dialysis? Was there any correlation between the baseline CMR data and kidney transplants or dialysis?
4. Minor issue: All the tables were labeled as Table 1, which should be corrected and should match with the table number in the manuscript’s result section.
As suggested in the basic reporting, the more information regarding the patients are required in the tables.
Please see the comments in the attachment.
Comments attached.
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.