- Line 56, gonarthrosis is a historic word. Try replacing it throughout the manuscript.
- Line 56-60, DFVO in young adults is usually done because of the appearance and sometimes pain rather than knee arthrosis.
- Line 62-63, not everyone agrees with this statement. You need to reference every single sentence or state as an opinion.
- Line70-71, omit this sentence “To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first review written in English comparing the results of the OW and CW-DFVO.”
- Line 71-73, the purpose and objectives are stated too broad for a systematic review. You have to explicitly state single primary and then secondary objectives, which are answered in sequentially in the Results.
- Line 80-81, searched keywords do not seem to cover the topic and authors could have missed some papers by not doing a comprehensive search. Thus, this precludes the study to be of any value.
- Line 141-142, is there any P value calculated for the complications?
- Line 146-147, there were no analysis done in this paper, therefore it is not acceptable to mention that “survival rate did not statistically differ between two groups”
- 147-148, authors did not mention any superiority hypothesis in the Introduction, but it is concluded that there is no superiority. It might be better to state comparable results rather than non-superiority.
PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides:
- Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright
- Fast publication times
- Peer review by expert, practicing researchers
- Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact
- Community-based dialogue on articles
- Worldwide media coverage
- Requires an author's permission before publishing review content
- Allows reviewers to display the title of the article they reviewed
Interested in reviewing for this journal?
Editors on Publons
(plus 419 others)