Use of Urinary Bladder Matrix Conduits in a Rat Model of Sciatic Nerve Regeneration after Nerve Transection Injury

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal's area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for

researchers?

A: Good

Abstract & Keywords

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

A: Good

Goal

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

A: Very Good

Structure

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

A: Good

Tools and Methods

Q: Are the methods the author uses adequate and well used?

A: Good

Discussion & Conclusion

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

A: Good

Comments: The Discussion compared the analysis of the results of the urinary bladder matrix conduits providing relevant literature. The study suggests further studies for the determination of beneficial conduit designs in the recovery process after the regenerative procedure. The research also puts forth the limitations in the clinical testing results of the biologically derived conduits.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Good

Author's knowledge

Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?

A: Good

Length

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

A: Good

Figures & Tables

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

A: Very Good

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Further comments on the paper

Comments: The manuscript aimed to replicate and expand on the use of single-channel porcine-derived urinary bladder matrix (UBM) conduits in segmental-loss, peripheral nerve repairs as comparable to criterion-standard nerve autografts. Further, the extent of nerve recovery was assessed and described by behavioural parameters. The overall research procedure has been explained, citing suitable results. The authors suggest further research to demonstrate greater efficacy over nerve autografts.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - Suitable to be published

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

Thanks,
Science Repository Team