A Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Experience of the University of Botswana

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 5)

The article entitled "A Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Experience of the University of Botswana" is well illustrated and described the topic is current and I recommend only a review in English.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The work had its quality improved. However, some aspects should be performed. First, the paper would benefit from a native English proofreading.

 

Major reviews

-        What is the objective of Sections 2 and 3? Some information are related on Section 1. I suggest merging the text for only section. Especially for section 3, it were not related to the paper’s objective. These data can be summarized on Introduction, allowing the authors to highlight the Botswana development.

-        Some details about the nebulizer mask (Section 5.3) are missing. Please, provide details that allowing their reproduction.

-        Figure 6 have all the text without capital letter on first sentence. Moreover, please the quality of the figure.

-        Table 1 has several problems. First, the table is out of template from the journal. Second, some quantities are missing. Is it normal, as in PEEP for 5.2? Machine rate is the same for the three flows. Is it important to mention?

-        Insert an estimative of cost for each development equipment.

 

Minor reviews

-        Some periods and legends are not on journal’s template. Please, correct all them.

-        State of Public Emergency has two styles of acronyms. Please, correct for only one.

-        Correct the reference on line 89 for journal’ style.

-        Define R&D on line 96.

-        Correct the sentence on lines 108-111.

-        Some paragraphs did not have the indent.

-        Correct the sentence on 233-234.

-        Insert bullets for the feedbacks of participants on lines 279-284/335-337/345-347.

-        Please, the authors should not split a figure on two pages, as in Figure 5. Please, correct them.

-        Figure 6 are presented on text after its mention on text.

-        Line 417: “analog” instead “analogue”.

-        Remove the Appendixes sections.

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

This research has an original objective and a meaningful content. I congratulate the authors for the work done. I am grateful with the editors for the possibility of revising this manuscript.

After the reviews provided by the authors, i  recomend the paper for publication

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author,

 

thank you for the effort to testify to the response given by Botswna University to the pandemic crisis.

 

I have some minor comments on the manuscript, which may help improve it and improve its appeal to a large audience.

 

at line 43: The restrictions a varied from one country to another (Fatmi, 2020). It should be : The 43 restrictions varied from one country to another (Fatmi, 2020). It is correct?

 

Line 62 or around : Vaccination have also to be mentioned as main measures for contain virus spread and morbidity

at line 167 (or in that paragraph): I think it could be useful to mentione also Italian accademi contribution. As an example: n Italy too, universities have collaborated in the systemic response to the pandemic. The lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) led to the development of production sites within national borders. Universities have intervened with their own laboratories to provide emergency performance measures necessary for the certification of PPE according to international standards.

(Ref: Tessarolo F et al.  Testing surgical face masks in an emergency context: The experience of italian laboratories during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis (2021) International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 (4), art. no. 1462, pp. 1-19.  DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18041462

 

at line 214: Here it is described a development method that can somehow be traced back to an AGILE approach, in this case applied to emergency. To see application of AGile method in a different context from pure software development see: Tessarolo, F., Petsani, D., Conotter, V., Nollo, G., Conti, G., Nikolaidou, M., Onorati, G., Bamidis, P.D., Konstantinidis, E.I. Developing ambient assisted living technologies exploiting potential of user-centred co-creation and agile methodology: the CAPTAIN project experience. (2022) Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, . 6.DOI: 10.1007/s12652-021-03649-0

In the conclusion: I believe it would be important to stress the need to keep updated the acquired knoledge and improve the labs performances for being always ready to respond to crisi and emergency with high level research and development. 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This research has an original objective and a meaningful content. I congratulate the authors for the work done. I am grateful with the editors for the possibility of revising this manuscript.

Unfortunately, and although the effort of the authors is evident, I do not see that the manuscript contributes anything to the scientific community, it is poorly structured, it does not set objectives or an adequate methodology, so the conclusions do not contribute absolutely anything new that has not been previously published during the last almost 3 years, unfortunately I see little chance of publication from my opinion. 

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is well written and shows the development of a University (University of Botswana) medical device for the COVID-19 pandemic. It is an essential technical report and case study, and some corrections are listed below.

 

- Authors' names should follow the journal template.

-       The abstract did not present relevant information about the methods and results of the paper. It seems a part of the Introduction section than "Abstract." For example, the authors could present the assistant devices developed at the university.

-       Commas missing on enumerations;

-       Please pixelate the faces of the participants in Figures 2, 3, and 4, so their identification can be preserved. It is a common practice when applying images of individuals' faces.

-       In Figure 2, insert a) and b) due to having two images.

-       Table 1 should be done on the journal's template.

-       I think it will be helpful if the authors insert a flowchart of the control from the ventilator (Section 5.4).

-       Did the authors develop a cost study with the devices designed? It will highlight the importance of showing that it is possible to develop a device clinical at a low cost.

Reviewer 4 Report

This work will not be suitable to be published such as  a research paper since it is required for more medical assistive devices which will be included with such a work in order to get the potential benefits for readers. It can also be submitted as a review paper rather than a research paper. 

Reviewer 5 Report

The present paper "Development of Medical Assistive Devices in Response to the COVID-19 pandemic: Experience of the University of Botswana"

The authors propose possible measures for local capacity building to institutions to better respond to future pandemics such as COVID. The paper needs a review in English in addition to presenting new facts that lead to this better future response to new pandemics.

 

The theme suggested by the authors is interesting but does not provide a good presentation.

 

The authors present in "Figure 1 and 2. Face Shields".

 

1-You should comment and explore further section 5.2 Ventilation Hood - providing more details - a protocol of use would be well accepted

 

2-The same must be done in section 5.3 Nebulizer Mask

 

3- In figure 5 it is necessary a photo that I can provide more details of the fan connected.

 

4-A tablet display running the visualization tool to display key parameters should be presented with more details and comments.

 

5-The discussion must be implemented and separated from the conclusion.