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.
Some minor issues are still needed to be addressed. Please revise the paper accordingly. Before re-submission, please carefully check and edit the language of the paper all throughout again.
Professional English is used throughout. References, article structure and data mentioned in manuscript are accord with requirements.
No comment.
No comment.
Writing of the manuscript has been enhanced. Some important minor points should be address.
As the adverse events in wearing orthokeratology lenses are one of the major concerns, the authors should mention about excluding the cases who experienced any side effects of wearing the lenses. This information is important for the readers to know that the study population was selected partly based on clinical outcomes. Therefore, this should also be discussed as a limitation of this study. The authors also should be advised to acknowledge the potential biases introduced by the selection criteria.
The conclusion should be given a timespan of 12 months as shown in this population.
Thanks for the revision.
The authors have made necessary changes in the manuscript taking Reviewer's comment into account.
I appreciate the author's for including the inclusion and exclusion criteria to make things clear.
The discussion part has been re-written in such a way to highlight the significance of the work with substantial citations to the previous work.
I appreciate the authors for making effort to address the Reviewer's comment.
This is an interesting study, however, our reviewers have major concerns on the submitted version. Please kindly consider their comments and revise it accordingly.
The English expression need to be further polished, and abbreviations should be completely spelt out when they are first appeared, such as "HOA" and "LOA" in line 30.
1. The current study is a retrospective study and involved small numbers of people, which may make it less reliable.
2. According to the manuscript, during the one-year follow up, patients worn OK lens at night and removed them before 7 am on the next day (line 74). But authors didn't mention when patients worn OK lens (specific timepoint), so it's not sure if all patients worn OK lens in a fixed duration.
3. For optical quality measurement, pecific measure time wasn't mentioned in methods. Considering OK lens' influence to cornea would tail off with time, the measure time should be fixed to insure its veracity.
According to the result 3.4.1, astigmatism aberration had no statistical significance at 1 and 3 months, and was remarkablely higher at 12 months after wearing OK lens (line 149-151). But authors didn't explain this phenomenon or give possible mechanism in discussion, which may confuse the readers.
1. Please enhance the English writing of this study. There were many grammar errors.
2. Age of "10.806±2.184" years old was not an appropriate format for age.
1. Please describe the selection criteria in more details. What eye examinations were done?
2. The "parameters were analyzed before and at 1, 3 and 12 months". However, in Table 1, only data from baseline and 12 months were presented.
3. Please detail the statistical methods used in analyzing the repeated data. What type of student t-test was used? Since Friedman test was a kind of repeated measurement ANOVA, what another ANOVA was used? How was the repeated measurement ANOVA applied to the data? Did the authors checked the distribution of visual acuity and compensating factor?
4. How was the visual acuity measured?
5. As the orthokeratology lenses can pose potentially vision-threatening risk to the subjects, did the authors record any of the adverse events?
6. It is very important to know how the study subjects were selected.
7. Please define the error bars in the figures.
8. The authors should describe the compliance data during the study period. Any other treatments were used?
9. Did the authors obtain data regarding the known visual quality problems of orthokeratology lenses, such as night vision loss, ghosting, halos, and glares?
10. Correction for inflated alpha should be considered.
The authors over-interpreted the results. First, this study spanned for only 12 months. Second, most of the parameters were regressing to baseline values, which indicated that the treatment effect of the lenses was decreasing over time. Third, the authors did not report any side effects and subjective visual quality measurements. Fourth, the selection criteria and selection process were not clear.
This retrospective study provided potentially useful data for the field. However, there are some critical issues to be addressed.
This is a well written, well executed, easy to read manuscript with no grammatical errors. The Figures and tables were self explanatory.
In this study the authors have made significant effort to study the visual quality of OK lenses worn juvenile patients who were followed up for a year.
The authors need to include the inclusion and exclusion criteria for recruiting the patients for this study.
As it has been mentioned in the discussion "the effect of OK lenses on control of myopia progression is well established", hitherto there is no or very little information is available on their effect on visual quality. This makes this study an unique piece of work, however the discussion part still needs to be re-written to highlight the robustness of this work and its significance to make it more interesting for the readers.
Once again I appreciate the authors for their effort taken to address visual quality of OK lenses.
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.