Routine resite of peripheral intravenous devices every 3 days did not reduce complications compared with clinically indicated resite: a randomised controlled trial
© Rickard et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010
Received: 13 April 2010
Accepted: 10 September 2010
Published: 10 September 2010
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting email@example.com.
|13 Apr 2010||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|4 May 2010||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Antoni Trilla|
|9 May 2010||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Louise Rose|
|10 May 2010||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Charlie Goldsmith|
|8 Jun 2010||Author responded||Author comments - Matthew McGrail|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|8 Jun 2010||Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|14 Jun 2010||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Antoni Trilla|
|24 Jun 2010||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Louise Rose|
|3 Jul 2010||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Charlie Goldsmith|
|22 Jul 2010||Author responded||Author comments - Matthew McGrail|
|Resubmission - Version 4|
|22 Jul 2010||Submitted||Manuscript version 4|
|10 Sep 2010||Editorially accepted|
|10 Sep 2010||Article published||10.1186/1741-7015-8-53|
How does Open Peer Review work?
Open peer review is a system where authors know who the reviewers are, and the reviewers know who the authors are. If the manuscript is accepted, the named reviewer reports are published alongside the article. Pre-publication versions of the article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting firstname.lastname@example.org. All previous versions of the manuscript and all author responses to the reviewers are also available.
You can find further information about the peer review system here.