Author’s response to reviews Title: Comparison of functional metacarpal splint and ulnar gutter splint in the treatment of fifth metacarpal neck fractures: A prospective comparative study Authors: Gokhan Kaynak (kaynak95@hotmail.com) Huseyin Botanlioglu (huseyinbotanlioglu@gmail.com) Mustafa Caliskan (drmustafacaliskan@hotmail.com) Bedri Karaismailoglu (bedrikio@hotmail.com) Mahmut Kursat Ozsahin (drmkursatozsahin@yahoo.com) Soner Kocak (soner332kocak@hotmail.com) Enis Yildirim (enisyldrm@hotmail.com) Onder Aydingoz (aydingozo@yahoo.com) Mehmet Fatih Guven (mfguven@yahoo.com;korkoz@hotmail.com) Version: 1 Date: 16 Feb 2019 Author’s response to reviews: Reviewer 1: * Explain the allocation process (lines 112-115.) Was this quasi-randomisation? Why not simply randomize. A more detailed explanation was added to the Method section at Line 113-117 . The added sentences are: “The treatment plan was applied to patients in a consecutive manner based on referral time (quasi- randomisation). The orthopedist making the intervention at the E.R. checked the last treatment performed and applied the other choice of treatment. The first patient included for the study was applied UGS and the next patient was applied FMS. The inclusion of the patients continued with this sequence until the end of the study period.” -Yes, it was quasi-randomisation (explanation added to Line 114). That is true that it was one of the limitations in our study as we mentioned in the limitations section. In the literature, there are lots of retrospective studies about metacarpal fractures, but prospective or randomized studies are few. So the prospective evidence is also lacking. In addition, some studies in the literature also pointed out that