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 April 6th, 2020 and was peer-reviewed by 5 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on May 28th, 2020.
  • The first revision was submitted on August 3rd, 2020 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on August 17th, 2020.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Aug 17, 2020 · Academic Editor

Accept

All the reviewers' concerns have been correctly addressed.

Reviewer 5 ·

Basic reporting

No comment

Experimental design

No comment

Validity of the findings

No comment

Additional comments

My previous comments have been addressed satisfactorily.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· May 28, 2020 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Dear authors,

Several experts have reviewed your paper and found scientific merit in your work. However, there are some issues that you should address in a revised version of the text.

Best regards,
Dr Palazón-Bru (academic editor for PeerJ)

[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.  It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter.  Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Determination of the curative effect of nasal septoplasty is a good idea.
The study is well done.

Experimental design

OK

Validity of the findings

OK

Additional comments

Determination of the curative effect of nasal septoplasty is a good idea.
The study is well done.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

Interesting article

Experimental design

Clear experimental design

Validity of the findings

Great validity of findings

Additional comments

Really interesting and well written article

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

I commend the authors for their extensive data analysis using SNOTT-22 score for the efficacy prediction of endoscopic nasal septum deviation correction. A normogram was created as a predictive model for the efficacy of nasal surgery.The manuscript is clearly written in professional English. The manuscript is structured well 3 descriptive figures and 2 tables. It is highlighted that the surgical outcome of nasal septal correction is affected by many factors including disease related factors, treatment related factors and patient related factors. The literature is well referenced and relevent.

Experimental design

A retrospective ethical approved study to develop a simple and effective tool that can be used by clinicians for the efficacy prediction of endoscopic nasal septoplasty. All the patients had to fulfill and inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 155 patients were included in the study with 109 males and 46 females with a mean age of 36.7 years. The methodology is well descibed with adequate details.

Validity of the findings

This novel study demonstrates that the use of normogram for nasal septal deviation surgery is both effective and economical.The limitation of this study was the gender was not equally represented and its limitation to mainland China only and a small sample study.

Additional comments

An extensive data analysis using SNOTT-22 score for the efficacy prediction of endoscopic nasal septum deviation correction. This study demonstrates that the use of normogram for nasal septal deviation surgery is both effective and economical.The limitation of this study was the gender was not equally represented and its limitation to mainland China only and a small sample study. It is a well written original primary research manuscript within the scope of the journal.

Reviewer 4 ·

Basic reporting

No comment

Experimental design

clinical implications should be better explain

Validity of the findings

Among limitations the authors reported that all the factors affecting the efficacy of nasal endoscopic septal deviation correction were not included in the risk factor analysis. This is a crucial pont. In addition, a morphologic classification about preoperative type of septal deviation should be added

Additional comments

Please add clinical and not only economical implications

Reviewer 5 ·

Basic reporting

- The authors proposed a prediction model for endoscopic nasal septoplasty. The idea is of interest and the use of English is acceptable.
- It is better to provide more background and literature reviews
- Article structure is ok, however some tables are displayed not too scientific. It is suggested to improve the display of their tables.
- SVM has been used in previous biomedical works such as PMID: 30822398 and PMID: 31055655, thus the authors are suggested to provide more references in this description.

Experimental design

- Why did the authors use SVM for feature selection, but logistic regression for classification? If the authors also use SVM for classification purpose, was the performance lower than logistic regression?
- When showing the patient characteristics, it is better to show p-value together to see the significant differences between two classes
- It is also better if the authors could report the training and validation cohort separately in Table 1.
- Measurement metrics or cross-validation had been used in different works e.g., PMID: 31277574 and PMID: 31380767. Therefore, it is important to refer more works to attract broader readership on this paper.

Validity of the findings

- It is important if the authors could validate their model on an external dataset.
- The authors should compare their performance results with the previous works on the same problem.
- How did the authors rank the order of features in their RFE method?
- From Fig. 2, it is easy to say that the model has overfitting (training performance was better than testing one). The authors should address this problem and discuss some solutions on it.
- In Fig. 2C, the legends stand in front of the curves, it makes the readers cannot see the curves.
- What are "All" and "None" lines in Fig. 2C?

Additional comments

No comment

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.