Analysis of Difference of Double Lung Ultrasound in Patients with Single Lung Ventilation

Review Data

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

researchers?

A: Very 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:

Few errors found in the manuscript (already corrected in the Galley Proof) are as follows:

• The subheadings “Abstract”, “Introduction” and “Materials and Methods” should be introduced within the text.
• The subheading “Discuss” should be changed to “Discussion”.
• Table and Figures must be numbered as “Table 1” and “Figures 1 & 2” respectively, and the same should be mentioned in the text part of the manuscript.
• The words “Deficiency in” before the 6^th paragraph under Discussion should be removed as it appears to be out of context.
• The word “imagine” in the table legend should be replaced with “imaging”.

Tools and Methods

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

A: Very good

Discussion & Conclusion

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

A: Very good

Comments:

The study is well designed and executed. The Methods and Results are adequately described. The Discussion encompasses the relevant findings from the previous studies on pulmonary ultrasound and lung injuries and provides a thorough analysis of the findings and their implications. The study is well supported with briefly explained figures and tables. The retrospective study finally concludes that perioperative point of care ultrasound has good clinical significance in postoperative and perioperative applications.

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 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

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This retrospective study aims to analyse the lung ultrasound images of 60 patients undergoing thoracoscopic partial pneumonectomy and compare the difference of bilateral lung ultrasound images. The study holds significance as single-lung ventilation is still the main ventilation method and mechanical stimulation of single lung ventilation can induce lung injury. The study further discusses that pulmonary ultrasound examination after chest surgery could show specific changes in both lungs, while transthoracic cardiac ultrasound examination could exclude pulmonary edema caused by cardiac insufficiency, making it possible to diagnose pulmonary edema in the perioperative period early.

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