Next Article in Journal
Role of Matrix Metalloproteinases 7 in the Pathogenesis of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux: Decreased E-cadherin in Acid exposed Primary Human Pharyngeal Epithelial Cells
Next Article in Special Issue
Osteoporosis in Rheumatic Diseases
Previous Article in Journal
The CCR4–NOT Deadenylase Complex Maintains Adipocyte Identity
Previous Article in Special Issue
MicroRNA-29a Counteracts Glucocorticoid Induction of Bone Loss through Repressing TNFSF13b Modulation of Osteoclastogenesis
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Anticoagulants and Osteoporosis

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20(21), 5275; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijms20215275
by Salvatore Santo Signorelli *, Salvatore Scuto, Elisa Marino, Michele Giusti, Anastasia Xourafa and Agostino Gaudio
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20(21), 5275; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijms20215275
Submission received: 24 September 2019 / Revised: 20 October 2019 / Accepted: 21 October 2019 / Published: 24 October 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Secondary Osteoporosis in Adults)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This review article discusses the effects of anticoagulants on bone metabolism, bone mineral density and on fragility fractures. This manuscript is not quite interest for me because authors just summarized the previous studies of different groups of anticoagulants, Heparin, LMWHS, oral anti-vitamin K agents, and direct oral anticoagulants in bone health. I don’t know well what is the key points that authors focused on and want to say to the readers.

There are major concerns that should be addressed.

For the better understanding the review, I recommend authors to add appropriate diagrams describing the text. Authors need to add a detailed summary and the aims of this review in Abstract and Introduction sections, respectively. In Table 1, authors should appropriate references. In Table 2, all abbreviations should be changed to the full descriptions. In Conclusion section, authors should discuss how they could reach that conclusions in detail and should give their opinion.   In keywords, the word ‘LMWHs’ is better to be changed to ‘low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs)’

Author Response

For the better understanding the review, I recommend authors to add appropriate diagrams describing the text. Authors need to add a detailed summary and the aims of this review in Abstract and Introduction sections, respectively. In Table 1, authors should appropriate references. In Table 2, all abbreviations should be changed to the full descriptions. In Conclusion section, authors should discuss how they could reach that conclusions in detail and should give their opinion.   In keywords, the word ‘LMWHs’ is better to be changed to ‘low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs)’ 

 

Response: Thank you for your useful suggestions.

We added a figure at the end of the manuscript that summarizes the anticoagulants’ safety on bone. Abstract and introduction were completed according to your suggestions. Table 1 shows now the appropriate references. In Table 2, all abbreviations have been changed to the full descriptions. Conclusion section was rewritten. In keywords, the acronym LMWHs has been changed to “low molecular weight heparins”.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a comprehensive and accessible review of evidence currently on the effects of anticoagulants on bone metabolism, BMD and fractures. The manuscript is well written and very timely given the extensive use of anticoagulant drugs in prophylactic treatment.

Author Response

This is a comprehensive and accessible review of evidence currently on the effects of anticoagulants on bone metabolism, BMD and fractures. The manuscript is well written and very timely given the extensive use of anticoagulant drugs in prophylactic treatment. Publication is recommended.

 

Response: Thank you for your encouraging judgment.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No comment.

Back to TopTop