Comparison of Short- versus Long-Course Antimicrobial Therapy of Uncomplicated Bacterial Pneumonia in Dogs: A Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Overall the study seems an interesting work with significant importance for pet clinicians. However, the sample size is too little to be used in the study.
- Most of the literature is older than 5 years, try to find the most recent work and use it to cite in the article.
- Table 3: In order to stand-alone abbreviations like N, Y, DC etc should be defined in table footnote.
- I suggest subdividing the M&M into parts along with subheadings for better thought of the reader.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript entitled “Comparison of Short Versus Long Course Antimicrobial Therapy of Uncomplicated Bacterial Pneumonia in Dogs: a Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study” is a clinical pilot study to evaluate if 10-day course of antimicrobial therapy is sufficient for treatment of uncomplicated canine bacterial pneumonia.
Please find my comments;
Figure 1 the number of dogs excluded from the study was 12, 8 was excluded because of antibiotics administration, 4 history of recurrent aspiration and 2 from bronchiectasis, the total number is 14. Were they the same dogs? The small number of dogs enrolled to the study (n=4 for each group) is also disturbing.
Table 2. There are different bacterial species identified in two experimental groups of dogs (A10 and A21). Did it influence the final outcome?
Table 4 The dogs with clinical signs and hematologic abnormalities were the same groups or two different?
Lines 317-319. There were own findings of authors or cited from other study?
Lines 352-356; the sentence is unclear
Author Response
Please see attachments
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I recommend the manuscript in present form for publication.