Diagnosis and Surgical Treatment of Traumatic Intracranial Hematomas in Young Children

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal 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: Good

Structure

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

A: Good

Comments: The content under the “goal of the study” under heading “Introduction”, has been shifted before “Introduction” and kept under the heading “Objective”.

Tools and Methods

Q: Are 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 as coherent?

A: Good

Comments: The Discussion puts forth the treatment results carried out using the adaptation of Lansky scale and the Glasgow outcome scale (GOS). This further provides an overview of the research done among children with traumatic intracranial hematomas (ICH).

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Weak

Comments: There is an insufficient presence of literature in the manuscript.

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 to 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 legend and notations clear?

A: Good

Comments: In Figure 1 legend, ‘C - the vertical size of the hematoma’ is not indicated with any arrow in the figures provided.

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Comments: There are certain issues found in the manuscript which are mentioned below. The authors need to check the highlighted point whether the modified sentence is in accordance with the intended meaning of the sentence.

·       Under Abstract, “Methods and Materials” has been changed to “Subject and Methods.”

·       Under heading “Subject and Methods”, 1^st paragraph, 2^nd sentence, “Correlating brain size with age [5], and establishing the dependence of the cranial cavity volume based on its circumference” can be better written as “The study also correlated the brain size with age and established the dependence of the cranial cavity volume based on its circumference.”

·       In Table 3, the “Russian text” has been replaced with “Group” to maintain uniformity throughout the manuscript.

Further comments on the paper

Comments: The manuscript provides a detailed account of how the treatment of young children with traumatic intracranial hematomas (ICH) can be improved by improving the diagnosis and use of minimally invasive surgical methods. This further describes the results of the study of the different types of hematomas occurring among young children. Lastly, it states that the effectiveness of the developed treatment of young children with ICH can be characterized by a decrease in the risk of unfavorable outcome.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - Suitable to be published

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

Thanks,
Science Repository Team