PONE-D-21-33726Simplification of 2D shear wave elastography by an enlarged SWE box and multiple regions of interest in one acquisitionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Weiher,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Dear author, my feeling is that your work may be published in this journal after major revisions. In order to get this, please provide the following required changes:Editing and language revisions are needed.Revise and shorten Introduction and Discussion.==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 18 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Francesco Somma

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments:

The paper deals with the use of larger SWE-box and setting ten regions of interest (ROI) in one acquisition to improve the procedure and reduce the acquisition time.

The subject is timely and interesting. Reviewers remarked the need of editing and language revision. Moreover, reviewer 2 suggested to re-organize the section Discussion. I suggest to revise in a more focused way the section Introduction, too.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Abstract

Line 26 : Please correct “Thru”

Introduction

Line 52-54 : Please rephrase

Line 55 : Please correct “collated”

Materials and methods

Line 64-65 : Please rephrase

Results

Linea 124 : Please correct “statistical”

Reviewer #2: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the article you submitted with the title "Simplification of 2D shear wave elastography by an enlarged SWE box and multiple regions of interest in one acquisition".

The topic of the manuscript refers to the use of larger SWE-box and setting ten regions of interest (ROI) in one acquisition to semplify the procedure and reduce the acquisition time.

The study presents data of primary scientific research and I found that the reported results have not been published elsewhere. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics and research integrity. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines. Summary of results is given concisely are clearly supported by accurate and good quality images. Conclusions are appropriate and the results as well as the discussion supports them.

My comments on the manuscript are listed below:

- The discussion should be strengthened and in this regard we recommend multiple articles that have already dealt with this issue which in fact does not represent a particular clinical innovation.

Among the recommended articles:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265802.

- "Choosing ten different ROIs in one acquisition ALWAYS involves different parts of the liver" is not scientifically correct. Describe why you say this.

- The lateral ROI position contributed as much as the acquisition depth to the total variance in SWD. Locations close to the initial shear-wave excitation pulse were more robust to biases because of inaccurate probe – phantom coupling. The size of the ROI and acquisition box did not introduce significant variations.

How do you refute this statement?

- Many technical errors and need for vocabulary corrections are identified. A quick review is recommended.

In conclusion, despite my remarks and the inaccuracies found, the proposed study is substantiated and presented concisely. The stated aim is schieved. I would recommend the proposed article to be accepted for publication but after clearance of my comments. I would recommend the authors to pay more attention when preparing their manuscripts on methodology and punctuation.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Simplification of 2D shear wave elastography by an enlarged SWE box and multiple regions of interest in one acquisition

PONE-D-21-33726R1

Dear Dr. Weiher,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Francesco Somma

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE