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, congratulations on the Acceptance.
Thanks for amending the write up.
Background description is enough.
Simple retrospective study.
Method is clear. Simple analysis.
Acceptable.
All were negative results as expected. Acceptable.
Scientific merit is not new even though the study has based on young samples.
No further comments
No further comments
No further comments
No further comments
Dear Authors,
There are important comments from both Peer Reviewers which I hope your team can use to revise and add more information.
From Peer Reviewer 1: Add more literatures about neuroimaging results when there is negative focal neurological features. As the findings are not new and already known;then please expand on what is new about this manuscript?
There are publications that indicate negative imaging results for almost all patients who have no neurological deficit and is this applicable also for psychotic patients without neurological deficits?
From Peer Reviewer 2 : Importantly the definition of psychosis: Why did you use CAARMS criteria to define psychosis? This seems unusual. Surely DSM-IV criteria would be more appropriate here, especially given that you later describe that diagnoses were according to DSM-IV.
Lines 99 ff. Details on how MRI and CT scans were acquired are missing and should be added (i.e. the make and model of scanner, sequences, etc.). Also please add information on how images were viewed (i.e. which software was used to reconstruct and display the images).
Thank you
Literature review, objectives and methods are acceptable and good. However, it need to get more literatures about neuroimaging results when there is negative focal neurological features.
nil
valid
<> the whole write up is good. But it is a retrospective record review.
<> the findings are not new and already known.
<>A lots have been published that there will be negative imaging results for almost all patients who have no neurological deficit. This is applicable also for psychotic patients without neurological deficit.
Basic reporting of this manuscript is fine.
The design is appropriate, but some questions remain concerning image data acquisition. See more detailed comments below.
The findings appear robust and the conclusions valid.
In this manuscript, Coentre and colleagues present a retrospective report of neuroimaging (CT/MRI) abnormalities in a sample of first-episode psychosis patients. It is investigated how frequent abnormalities in these patients are and what the clinical and demographic associations are. The study makes a contribution to answering the clinical question of what may be expected from neuroimaging in the clinical work-up and subsequent treatment of this patient group.
Minor Comments
Line 70: What is B.K.?
Lines 77/78: What do you mean by “MRI is not yet widely available”? Do you have numbers to back this up?
Line 85: What is a “clearly referred study design”?
Lines 91-93, definition of psychosis: Why did you use CAARMS criteria to define psychosis? This seems unusual. Surely DSM-IV criteria would be more appropriate here, especially given that you later describe that diagnoses were according to DSM-IV.
Lines 99 ff. Details on how MRI and CT scans were acquired are missing and should be added (i.e. the make and model of scanner, sequences, etc.). Also please add information on how images were viewed (i.e. which software was used to reconstruct and display the images).
Line 107/108: This sentence is not clear to me at all. Please rephrase and put more clearly.
Lines 235/273: These references appear incomplete.
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.