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,
Thank you for submitting your critical work to us. We would like to inform you that your work has been accepted for publication. The production house may contact you regarding any typeset questions they may have.
Best wishes for your future submissions to us.
Kindly,
Dr. Nagendran Tharmalingam
Handling Editor
no comment
no comment
no comment
For better formatting, last two sentences in the title of table 1 can be moved to footnote.
Dear Authors,
Please address reviewer 2's comment on Table 1 to send the final decision.
Thank you.
Dr. Nagendran Tharmalingam
It is clear now with relevant results to the hypotheses
The research question well defined and methods well described
Data in results are clear and conclusion are well stated.
None
Thank you for addressing the comments. No further comments here.
None.
Perhaps the layout of table 1 could be clearer: a more detailed table title & more specific description of the numbers in the table.
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your work to us. We have received feedback from our peers that suggests major revisions are needed. Please review these points carefully and provide us with your responses. Particularly, Reviewer 2 has highlighted some thoughts that could significantly strengthen the manuscript and should be included. The methods and statistical sections need to be improved per reviewer 2.
We look forward to receiving your revised submission.
Best wishes,
Dr. Nagendran Tharmalingam.
Perhaps you can clearly state the study's purpose in relation to your hypothesis on DISH. The hypothesis was stated clearly, but your purpose of the study was very general; it could be more specific in relation to the title of your study.
no comment
The discussion could describe in detail, concerning the title of the article, why DISH was the specific risk factor for MSSA spine infection and how it was related to it. It was described in the article but wasn't highlighted as to why; perhaps, it could do so more clearly.
Please avoid using abbreviations in the title.
Overall, please expand the Methods section with more details. For example,
1. In Subjects, define more clearly the inclusion-exclusion criteria.
2. In Data Analysis, I don't see Figure A/Ab. The additional question to be investigated should be stated earlier. Also, for "The effectiveness of the antibiotic treatment was assessed by comparing the rates of WBC and CRP" - which method is used for the comparison? It is mentioned in the results that the comparison was significant, how did you determine the significance?
3. In Statistical analysis, please include all details about modeling as mentioned in the Results. For example, how did you measure multicollinearity? How did you develop the more accurate prediction model? Why would you say its more "accurate"? Which variables were included in the model?
In addition, how did you handle potential confounding in the modeling? How did you choose your patient factors?
No comment
No comment
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.