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. Xie,
Thank you for your revised manuscript.
Now your paper is suitable for publication.
Dear Dr. Xie,
The referees have evaluated the revised manuscript.
They are interested to publish your paper.
You Just have to perform some very minor revisions in your text before we can publish the paper
BW
1. correct this number of "25.000%" on Line 36.
2. In the results section, particularly the risk factors, the results can be described in more detail, presenting the necessary numbers.
no comments
no comments.
no comments.
I noticed that the author made a lot of revisions and improvements to the manuscript, which enriched the content
no comment
no comment
Dear Dr. Xie,
the reviewers have raised several comments.
You need to modify and improve your manuscript to make your paper suitable for the publication in the journal
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should *only* be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
1. The title is confusing. Was the prediction for the risk factors of air embolism or air embolism? Besides, The word 'Individualized' is not precise.
2. The introduction section requires to be more comprehensive.
3 The word Discussion in the abstract should be Conclusion. The conclusion should be the main content of the research, rather than what the author has conducted.
4. The results in the abstract should present the core results of the study instead of the methods. For example, LASSO was used to …… (Line 43) was the method. The risk factors should be presented. Besides, use consistent expressions of numbers.
5. The abstract can be more concise. For example, the number of patients who underwent CT-TNB was repeated in the method and result. This number would be better in the result part.
6. The language needs to be modified to fit the style of academic papers better. Correct the grammar mistakes.
1. The method part needs more details. For example, how data were collected? Add definitions of measurement variables where needed. Statistical analyses required more information in each step.
2. The sample size of the air embolism is small, while 8 the risk factors were determined. The results would be more reliable if there are at least 5 events per variable.
3. Is needle path length through the ventilated lung and patient position considered by the authors, since these two factors were reported as independent risk factors by other researchers? (Monnin-Bares V, Chassagnon G, Vernhet-Kovacsik H, Zarqane H, Vanoverschelde J, Picot MC, Bommart S. Systemic air embolism depicted on systematic whole thoracic CT acquisition after percutaneous lung biopsy: Incidence and risk factors. Eur J Radiol. 2019 Aug;117:26-32. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.05.016IF: 3.3 Q2 . Epub 2019 May 22. PMID: 31307649.）
1. In the result section, detailed core results should be presented both in the baseline and multiple logistic regression, including the OR and confidence intervals. There are no results of multiple logistic regression.
2. Add the total number of screened patients, the number of patients to each exclusion criteria, and the groups in the flow diagram.
3. The discussion section should primarily focus on thoroughly examining the findings of this study, comparing and contrasting them with previous research, exploring potential mechanisms, discussing the clinical implications, etc. The first two paragraphs are not related.
The paper must adhere strictly to the format and content of a research article in a logical manner, provide clear methods, clearly articulate its findings, present necessary results with data, and provide sufficient demonstration and support for the conclusions.
I read with interest the authors' work on Individualized prediction of air embolism risk factors for patients after computed tomography-guided percutaneous lung biopsy. This is a well-known complication even if it is rare. The content of the article is standardized and the language is clear and concise. There are some issues that need further clarification.
How are asymptomatic patients identified? Regarding the patients mentioned, how long did it take after surgery for air embolism to be diagnosed? Does this indication suggest that all patients underwent similar tests post-surgery to verify the presence of air embolism? If so, kindly provide further details on the experimental design. If not, please clarify the process for detecting asymptomatic patients.
Please briefly describe the method of determining sample size and the feasibility of analyzing 21 factors with 28 positive results.
What are the symptoms exhibited by the patients, and is there a consistent embolism site among them?
The discussion is not systematic and this would need to be worked on.
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.