To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).
The revision has been well performed.
The changes made by the authors are fine to my opinion.
I have read the manuscript and am in agreement with the 2 reviewers that it should only need Minor Revisions.
As noted by reviewer 2, the 2 materials which are used under 2 very different legal routes, this needs a more detailed explanation of the legal use in humans.
•the submission adhere to all PeerJ policies
•professional standards of English language
•well structured article
•the submission include all results relevant to the hypothesis
•primary research in a retrospective analysis
•clearly defined research question
• high technical standard of investigation procedure
•methods are well described
• robust and statistically sound data
• uncontrolled data (no comparison with histological findings...)
•the conclusion is connected to the original question investigated
•speculation about the different enhancement patterns of the 2 presented CMs is identified as such
# " dose of ferumoxytol was 6.0 mg Fe per kg body ": why is the concentration of Fe higher in ferumoxytol; please explain...
# did you compare your MRL results with PLND findings?
# " the availability of ferumoxtran However is limited because it is currently not approved. ": please explain
The quality of the results is a little hampered by the small number of subject for the ferumoxytol case (only 4).
Line 97-98 needs a clear ref.
Which T1 method is used in line 107.
Line 166, this is investigated in pigs and described by: J. Pouw Int. J. of nanomedicine 2015. 10, P 1235.
Line 171-172: The second coating (PEG) is not mentioned.
A clear presentation of all the obtained data is missing in particular for the ferumoxytol case. In particular with no significant statistics, simply presenting all observed data is the best thing to do. In particular on line 93-95 these data are missing. In this case it is not clear which patients are considered here.
In line 132-133 the time-point of the measurement is not clear.
- What is the order & timing of the administered agent and the MRI
- Can you comment on the washout time of both agents
The current trend (line 50) is an opinion not supported by facts or lit.
The two materials are used under two very different legal routes, this needs a more detailed explanation of the legal use in humans.
The safety issue on line 72-74 is not clear for a general reader, please explain with more detail
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.