In Vivo Efficacy of Contact Lens Drug-Delivery Systems in Glaucoma Management. A Systematic Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study is comprehensible and very good.
I think nothing need to rewrite.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dearest Colleagues,
your work is interesting and well made.
best wishes & stay safe
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a very interesting systematic review including 19 studies to find out the in vivo efficacy of contact lens drug delivery systems in glaucoma management. Authors have adhered to the standard PRISMA guidelines. Authors have highlighted the disadvantage of other treatment options (e.g eyedrops/hypotensive agents), problem with topical treatment (poor instillation techniques, physical barriers), low bioavailability of eyedrops etc. to show the contact lens drug delivery as a promising alternative. This is much need study for audience and the paper falls under the scope of Applied Sciences journal. However, authors need to address few issues before considering it appropriate for publication.
- Abstract: line 17, was it 128 studies? Please confirm consistency with figure 1
- Overall, for all in vivo study, it is important to mentioned following point if available in detail in the corresponding study: 1) model use (human/animal/bird), 2) number of patients/animals/birds, 3) dose of drug used, 4) IOP before and after treatment, 5) any side effects/toxicity of the treatment. Example Line 121-127, reference 50, reference 31, 32 please clarify which in vivo study was this? Was it on human/animal/bird?
- Section 2. Material and Methods and Results first paragraph: This section is heavily plagiarized from author own paper https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/1424-8247/13/9/221/html. Please revised it.
- Line 138, study of Podos et al (reference 34). Please check paper again for the correctness of the pilocarpine % (was it 0.5%?
- The study included in section 3.1 Drug-soaked CL were too old (paper of 1970s; reference 32-36, 51). Isn’t there more recent study in this area (drug-soaked CL) or this method is not in practice now?
- Section 3.2 Vitamin Loaded CL. I guess the heading should be Vitamin E loaded CL as all study mentioned in this section are on Vitamin E and figure 3 also specially mention Vitamin E. Reference 54 is on Vitamin A but it is in vitro. So, the last line can be excluded
- Text is cryptic in many places, Needs extensive grammatical correction.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper “In vivo efficacy of contact lens drug delivery systems in glaucoma management. A systematic review.”, Authors: Francesco Sartini, Martina Menchini, Chiara Posarelli, Giamberto Casini and Michele Figus represents a systematic review on an interesting and hot research field - contact lens as drug delivery systems in glaucoma therapy. The review also concerns and discusses the technical limitation and future perspectives in glaucoma therapy base on the use of contact lens.
After carefully reading the manuscript and the supplementary file, I consider that the paper is a valuable material which represents the state of the art in this research field, being well and clearly written, as a review should be.
The cited references are numerous, appropriate and diverse in terms of drugs used in glaucoma treatment, offering a theoretical background for any researcher interested in this topic.
Therefore, I consider that the material should be published as it is and I congratulate the authors for their work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
This is an interesting and well-written review about contact lens drug delivery systems, clearly describing not only the methods used but also highlighting benefits as well as disadvantages of each method used.
I have only a few minor comments:
Please delete headings from abstract
Line 107 – please delete colon after “2”
Line 114 – please use italics for “in vitro”
Line 122 – please modify “Witcherle et colleagues” as “Witcherle and colleagues”
Line 130 – space is missing “..a pilocarpine eyedrop (0.1ml)…”
Line 277 – please modify “Maulvi et colleagues” as “Maulvi and colleagues”
Line 364 – please use italics for “Acanthamoeba”
Line 403 – “in vitro” should be in italics
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you addressing all of my comments. The revised manucscirpt looks better than previous version. I have recommended "accept" for publication
