Skip to main content

Advertisement

Open Peer Review Reports for: No bias of ignored bilaterality when analysing the revision risk of knee prostheses: Analysis of a population based sample of 44,590 patients with 55,298 knee prostheses from the national Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register

Back to article

Pre-publication versions of this article are available by contacting info@biomedcentral.com.

Original Submission
28 Nov 2002 Submitted Original manuscript
3 Dec 2002 Author responded Author comments - Otto Robertsson
Resubmission - Version 2
3 Dec 2002 Submitted Manuscript version 2
3 Dec 2002 Author responded Author comments - Otto Robertsson
Resubmission - Version 3
3 Dec 2002 Submitted Manuscript version 3
6 Jan 2003 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Birgitte Espehaug
6 Jan 2003 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Ove Furnes
9 Jan 2003 Author responded Author comments - Otto Robertsson
Resubmission - Version 4
9 Jan 2003 Submitted Manuscript version 4
9 Jan 2003 Author responded Author comments - Otto Robertsson
Resubmission - Version 5
9 Jan 2003 Submitted Manuscript version 5
27 Jan 2003 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Birgitte Espehaug
31 Jan 2003 Author responded Author comments - Otto Robertsson
Resubmission - Version 6
31 Jan 2003 Submitted Manuscript version 6
Publishing
5 Feb 2003 Editorially accepted
5 Feb 2003 Article published 10.1186/1471-2474-4-1

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 are available by contacting info@biomedcentral.com.

You can find further information about the peer review system here.

Advertisement