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.
One of the previous reviewers was unable to review the revisions. However, I have assessed the revision and agree with the assesment of Reviewer 1, which is that the authors have satifsfactorily addressed all previous comments. Given this, it is my pleasure to recommend publication of this manuscript its current form.
no comment
Ok
Ok
no comment
Your manuscript has now been seen by two reviewers. You will see from their comments below that while they find your work of interest, some major points are raised. We are interested in the possibility of publishing your study, but would like to consider your response to these concerns in the form of a revised manuscript before we make a final decision on publication. We therefore invite you to revise and resubmit your manuscript, taking into account the points raised. Please highlight all changes in the manuscript text file.
The article is good in terms of the English language, but it has many writing problems, and it is recommended that the entire article be edited by an native English orthopedic surgeon.
The introduction is somewhat dense and could be fragmented into shorter paragraphs to enhance readability. Each section could ideally focus on a single main idea to make it easier for readers to digest the information.
The final sentences in introduction summarizing the study's aims could be more precise. While the intentions are articulated, rephrasing them to state the hypotheses or specific research questions explicitly might strengthen this section.
The structure of the article is professional, figures, tables and raw data are suitable.
The article does not offer new ideas. Many articles have clearly identified the relationship between MRI and ulnar variance.
The method section is lengthy and could be broken down into shorter paragraphs for improved readability. Each subsection (e.g., Study Population, MRI Protocol, UV Examination, Statistical Analysis) could be more distinct.
While the methods for data collection are described, it would be beneficial to specify how the diagnoses made by orthopedists or rehabilitation specialists were verified or categorized.
Although the pathologies assessed are listed, there is limited detail on how these findings were classified or what criteria were used for their assessment beyond the general MRI findings referenced.
In conclusion: it is essential to clearly establish the association between ulnar variance and specific wrist conditions, these do not imply causation without further empirical validation.
no comment
I noticed that the inclusion criteria refer to one month of wrist pain. In this case, the terminology should reflect this (i.e., chronic and subacute wrist pain). Unless there is a specific justification for this, please explain.
The results are clearly presented with appropriate statistical analyses. Some additional visual aids might
benefit readability.
The association between positive UV and TFCC rupture is presented as definitive despite limited statistical power. This should be framed more cautiously.
I congratulate the authors on a well-written paper. If the suggested minor revisions are addressed, I would recommend this manuscript for publication.
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.