Detecting Perirenal Haematoma in Renal Transplants with Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound: A Systematic Review

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest?

Comments: Yes, the topic is relevant to the journal area of interest.

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

Comments: The abstract includes the key elements such as the background, methods, results, and conclusion, making it complete.

As for the keywords, they are not explicitly mentioned in the manuscript. Nevertheless, potential keywords based on the abstract could be: "renal transplant," "contrast-enhanced ultrasound," and "perirenal haematoma". Adding a keyword list can help researchers find the paper more easily when searching for related topics.

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

Comments: Yes, the goal is explicitly stated in the introduction. The authors clearly state that they aim to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CE-US) in detecting perirenal haematomas (PH) in kidney transplants. The formulation is clear and unambiguous​.

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

Comments: The structure is coherent and follows a standard scientific format (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion). It aligns with the paper's goal of systematically reviewing the efficacy of CE-US in renal transplants.

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

Comments: The discussion and conclusion are related to the results presented. The paper maintains coherence by reinforcing the findings that CE-US is potentially better than B-US for detecting PH. The results from the studies are adequately discussed and linked to the conclusion.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

Comments: The authors utilize relevant and recent literature, including four level II evidence studies and several related references. The selection of sources appears to be appropriate to support their review​.

Length

Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

Comments: The length seems adequate for the significance of the topic. It provides a detailed exploration of both the methodology and the results. Shortening the paper may risk omitting important details regarding the comparative analysis between B-US and CE-US.

Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: The figures, tables, and legends are used suitably. For instance, Table 1 presents baseline characteristics clearly, and the notations are straightforward. The legends are descriptive and enhance the understanding of the data.

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: The writing style is clear and understandable, following the standard of academic writing. The sentences are concise and convey the necessary information without unnecessary complexity.

Further comments on the paper

Comments:

The paper provides valuable insights into the use of CE-US for renal transplants, with a focus on detecting PH. A limitation worth noting is that only two of the studies compare B-US and CE-US, so the conclusion regarding CE-US superiority could benefit from further robust research. Additionally, including more studies with larger sample sizes might enhance the generalizability of the findings.

Overall, the paper is well-written and structured, with all major components addressed appropriately.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - This manuscript is recommended for further publication.

If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team