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 May 16th, 2024 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on September 17th, 2024.
  • The first revision was submitted on October 11th, 2024 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on October 25th, 2024.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Oct 25, 2024 · Academic Editor

Accept

Only 1 re-review was obtained, but I confirm that in my opinion the authors have addressed all of the reviewers' comments and manuscript is ready for publication.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

The authors have addressed my concerns.

Experimental design

The authors have addressed my concerns.

Validity of the findings

The authors have addressed my concerns.

Additional comments

The authors have addressed my concerns.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Sep 17, 2024 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Please address the comments of the 3 reviewers. Given the fact that Reviewer 2 has opted for Rejection, there is no guarantee your article will be Accepted.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

This article explores the risk factors for hypokalemia after pituitary adenoma surgery and could appeal to neurosurgeons.
The title is novel, the conclusion is reliable, and has strong clinical relevance.

Experimental design

The authors need to add values of serum potassium at different time periods to enrich the article.

Validity of the findings

NA

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

There are limited studies to indicate that hypokalemia impacts outcomes in pituitary adenoma. The introduction only mentions the known general medical knowledge regarding hypokalemia in clinical patients and its clinical impact.

Experimental design

A retrospective study is performed. In properly studying hypokalemia, one would also need to capture acid/base balance, the impact of fluid shifts and the impact of renal disease on patients.

Validity of the findings

The results do not support that transspenoidal patients have hypokalemia beyond expected numbers seen in clinical patients. And for patients with hypokalemia, the clinical result is benign.

Additional comments

I admire the authors attempts to study an unexplored aspect of pituitary adenoma surgery but the challenge remains as to what clinical role, if any, does hypokalemia play in the management of pituitary adenoma patients. Did hypokalemia impact the outcome of patients? How many suffered significant symptoms related to hypokalemia?

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

The methods section lacks detail on how hypoalbuminemia was defined and measured. This information is crucial for study reproducibility.

The ROC curve analysis for age (Figure 1) is mentioned in the results but not in the methods. This analysis should be described in the methods section.

Experimental design

The sample size (n=168) is relatively small for a retrospective study, especially when only 18 patients developed hypokalemia. This limits the statistical power and generalizability of the findings. The authors should discuss this limitation and consider performing a power analysis.

Validity of the findings

The authors state that age and postoperative hypoalbuminemia are independent risk factors for hypokalemia. However, the biological mechanisms underlying these associations are not adequately explained. A more in-depth discussion of potential physiological pathways is needed.

The authors mention that their findings differ from some previous studies (e.g., regarding ACTH-secreting adenomas). A more thorough comparison with existing literature and potential explanations for these discrepancies should be provided.

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.