Combined Treatment of Noninfected Diabetes-Related Foot Ulcerations with Preconditioned Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma with the MCT System to Enhance Exosomes Release and Phototherapy: A Case Report

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest?

Comments: Yes, the topic is relevant to the journal area of interest.

Abstract & Keywords

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

Comments: The abstract is well-structured and includes essential elements: problem background, patient details, treatment protocol, results, and a brief conclusion. It clearly summarizes the study’s purpose, method, outcome, and implication effectively.

Keywords: Appropriately chosen; however, consider adding "wound healing," "regenerative medicine," or "biomodulation," which could enhance discoverability and more accurately reflect the manuscript's core topics.

Goal

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

Comments: The goal is explicitly stated and clear: assessing the effectiveness of combining autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) with phototherapy for treating diabetes-related foot ulcerations (DRFUs). The formulation is straightforward and unambiguous.

Structure

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

Comments: The structure is coherent, logically progressing from introduction to case presentation, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Each section directly aligns with and supports the stated goal. Clear transitions and logical flow enhance readability and comprehension.

Discussion & Conclusion

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

Comments: The discussion logically and clearly links to the previously presented results. The biological and clinical rationale behind the observed outcomes is comprehensively explained, specifically highlighting the mechanism of exosomes and phototherapy effects.

The conclusion succinctly summarizes the findings and implications and aligns well with the results presented, making the narrative coherent and convincing.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

Comments: The manuscript incorporates relevant and recent literature, particularly focusing on diabetic foot ulcers, the regenerative potential of exosomes, PRP, and phototherapy. References are up-to-date, appropriate, and adequately support the manuscript’s claims and discussion points.

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?

Comments: The paper's length is adequate considering it’s a detailed case report. The depth provided is suitable for demonstrating a novel treatment's potential efficacy. There is no significant redundancy, so shortening the paper is not recommended as this could reduce valuable context and depth.

Figures & Tables

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

A: Figures (particularly Figures 1, 3, and 4 on pages 2 and 4) are suitably utilized to clearly demonstrate treatment progression and effectiveness. They are appropriately placed, high-quality, and visually informative. Legends are clear and descriptive, enabling easy interpretation and enhancing comprehension of visual content.

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: The writing is clear, understandable, professional, and scientifically rigorous. The manuscript uses a precise medical and scientific vocabulary, and explanations of specialized terminology and processes are accessible, enhancing reader understanding.

Further comments on the paper

Comments:

• Strengths include its clinical relevance, innovative methodology, clarity in describing procedural details, and comprehensive coverage of the topic.
• As a suggestion, explicitly discuss potential limitations and future research directions more thoroughly. While limitations such as hospitalization preventing further sessions and absence of validated quality-of-life assessments are mentioned, expanding upon potential study designs or suggestions for future investigations might be beneficial.
• Consider including more explicit statements on the potential applicability and limitations of the procedure in diverse patient populations or in broader clinical practice to strengthen clinical relevance and real-world applicability.

Overall, the manuscript is highly coherent, clearly written, methodologically sound, and well-supported by relevant literature. It represents a valuable addition to the existing body of research on diabetes-related ulcer treatments and regenerative medicine techniques.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - This manuscript is recommended for further publication

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

Thanks,
Science Repository Team