Comments on abstract, title, references

Abstract: The abstract is well structured. It would have been better if the design of the study were clearly mentioned. Conclusion of the study can be made more precise.

Title: Design of the study can be added.

References: The number of references is adequate. Yet, some of the references like 6, 7, 28 can be written in more scientific way. More of relevant articles like that of randomised control trials or meta-analysis can be added if available.

Comments on introduction/background

1. The introduction section has given good framework. The research problem is well described. Yet, not all the key words in title and objective are described in detail. For example, importance and applicability of MRI along with histology could have been added.
2. Incidence of SDFT injury or equine tendinopathy may be added.

Comments on methodology

The section contains sufficient information to replicate the technical aspect of the study. It could have been better if scientific aspect of the paper were explained in more details like design of study, study size calculation and explanation of variables.

Final histology was assessed after death but the cause of death is lacking. The timeframe for assessment of variable and lifespan are not well explained.

Comments on data and results

The pictorial presentation of findings of the paper is appealing.

The results section could have been started with main findings of the study rather than starting with development of cellulitis.

MRI of horses 1 and 3 are not mentioned in the text. Further, the time interval for assessment by MRI is not uniform in horses 4 and 2.

Histological assessment at the time of 9 weeks seems to have contradicted with statement in methods section whereby it is mentioned that such evaluation was done after death.

Comments on discussion and conclusions

Discussion and conclusion are in line with title and objective.

The discussion section could have been better if instead of repeating main finding, the study result were compared with the present day evidence from different perspectives.

Implication of findings of paper need to be explained.

It is good that limitations are well explained. At the same time, strengths of the study would have been added.