Use of Urinary Bladder Matrix Conduits in a Rat Model of Sciatic Nerve Regeneration after Nerve Transection Injury
Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal's area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for
Abstract & Keywords
Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?
Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?
A: Very Good
Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?
Tools and Methods
Q: Are the methods the author uses adequate and well used?
Discussion & Conclusion
Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them coherent?
Comments: The Discussion compared the analysis of the results of the urinary bladder matrix conduits providing relevant literature. The study suggests further studies for the determination of beneficial conduit designs in the recovery process after the regenerative procedure. The research also puts forth the limitations in the clinical testing results of the biologically derived conduits.
Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?
Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?
Q: Is the length of the paper adequate for the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?
Figures & Tables
Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legends and notations clear?
A: Very Good
Q: Is it clear and understandable?
Further comments on the paper
Comments: The manuscript aimed to replicate and expand on the use of single-channel porcine-derived urinary bladder matrix (UBM) conduits in segmental-loss, peripheral nerve repairs as comparable to criterion-standard nerve autografts. Further, the extent of nerve recovery was assessed and described by behavioural parameters. The overall research procedure has been explained, citing suitable results. The authors suggest further research to demonstrate greater efficacy over nerve autografts.
Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?
A: Yes - Suitable to be published
If you have any questions or clarifications you can write to the journal.
Science Repository Team
This email is restricted to the intended user.
|Science Repository - Support|
Corresponding AuthorAlonzo D. Cook
Neuroscience Center, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA
Article TypeOriginal Article
Publication historyReceived: Fri 11, Nov 2022
Accepted: Wed 30, Nov 2022
Published: Wed 07, Dec 2022
Copyright© 2023 Alonzo D. Cook. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Hosting by Science Repository.