This article has Open Peer Review reports available.
Cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam compared with piperacillin/tazobactam as empiric therapy based on the in-vitro surveillance of bacterial isolates in the United States for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections
© The Author(s). 2017
Received: 4 January 2017
Accepted: 18 April 2017
Published: 28 April 2017
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting email@example.com.
|4 Jan 2017||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|21 Feb 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Robert Moss|
|23 Feb 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Wendong Liu|
|24 Mar 2017||Author responded||Author comments - Teresa Kauf|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|24 Mar 2017||Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|13 Apr 2017||Author responded||Author comments - Teresa Kauf|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|13 Apr 2017||Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|18 Apr 2017||Editorially accepted|
|28 Apr 2017||Article published||10.1186/s12879-017-2408-7|
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.