We have received the reports from our advisors on your manuscript, "The mobile terminal application program was used for endotracheal tube cuff pressure measurement", which you submitted to Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing.
Based on the advice received, I feel that your manuscript could be reconsidered for publication should you be prepared to incorporate major revisions. When preparing your revised manuscript, you are asked to carefully consider the reviewer comments which are attached, and submit a list of responses to the comments. Please also submit your response as separate submission item.
Please note: When uploading your revised files, please make sure only to submit your editable source files (i. E. Word, tex).
We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript within four weeks.
With kind regards,
Tom Van Zundert, M.Sc, Ph.D, EDRA, FANZCA
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR:
I found some small mistakes in the English translation:
page 1 Manuscript line 21 "cuff" not "airbag"
page 2 Manuscript line 48 "scanned" not "scaned"
page 5 Manuscript line 5 "that" not "tnat"
page 6 Manuscript line 44 "therew?"
Reviewer #2: This is a before and after study over a one and a half year period in a general ICU. Introduction of a mobile terminal app resulted in an improvement in the percentage of cuff pressure within the recommended range.
There are many grammatical errors in the manuscript which needs to be amended.
Below are just some examples of the sentences that must be clearly written to be understood by the readers.
"Cuff pressure measurement was trained..."
"In July 2017, and following a 2 month wash-out period..."
"....ETT cuff pressure measurement normatively."
"This intervention could ensured..."
" Took the mobile terminal to the bedside..."
"Note: when the cuff pressure was not Measured..."
"cuff pressure within the recommended range Compared..."
"There were 73 patients with mechanical ventilation support were monitored..."
"No use of manometer..."
"The head nurse couldn't...took unrecommended method...failure to take effective measures."
"ETT cuff pressure maintained...could reduced..."
"...,large sample size therew..."
1. Discussion on why patient important outcome measures such as VAP was not significant should be elaborated upon.
2. Authors should be able to distinguish how this is as much a quality improvement project as it is clinical research. Quality improvement projects are subject to biases.