Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

Examples of Effective Responses to Revision Letter Requests

Note: key features of an effective response are: (1) the original request is repeated, including the
original item numbering; (2) formatting is used to make it clear where the request ends and the
response begins; (3) the response clarifies where in the revision the changes were made; and (4)
responses to the editorial committee, the statistician, the individual reviewers, and the editorial
office staff are organized in separate sections.

1. It would be useful to include (as a supplement) a brief table that summarizes characteristics
of the databases vs. the CKD-EPI databases.

Reply: We have revised Table S1 to allow comparisons of the patient characteristics in the
relevant databases.

4. Please provide the research ethics committee approval number(s) in the Methods section or as online
supplementary material.

Author Response: Thank you for pointing this out, IRB approval numbers have been added to the
manuscript text: [Page 9 of the tracked changes version, top paragraph] highlighted as follows:
“The study was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board (IRB; approval
numbers: University of Iowa: 318772; Indiana University: 2016-0073; Tufts University:
20160738) in each center.”

7. Page 9, line 26: Please be more specific when referring to "type of insurance" by specifying your
focus on "Limited Health Insurance" vs. "Medicare" for your first cohort and "Uninsured" vs.
"Medicaid" for your second cohort.

Response: As suggested, we state that our exposure was whether patients had Medicare or
limited insurance: “The study exposure was whether patients had Medicare or Limited Insurance
(Medicaid or uninsured) at the start of dialysis.” (This passage now appears on page 10 of the
marked revision.)

Editorial Comment 3: Consider moving Figure 2 to online supplementary material.

As suggested, we have moved former Figure 2 to the online supplementary material


(new Figure S1).

Reviewer 1, Comment 2: Page 6 (PRISMA) is the proper spelling

We thank the reviewer and have corrected the spelling mistake on page 7, line 13 in
the marked version of the revision.

7. In paragraph 2 of the results, the juxtaposition of the 10th-90th percentiles and then the 95% CI is a
bit odd as you are showing different types of statistics in close proximity. In paragraph 2, when you
state ‘mean confidence interval’, clearly state ‘mean 95% confidence interval’.

We considered this comment in conjunction with comment 1 from reviewer 2 and have updated
the language in the revised manuscript to read median 95% confidence interval(s) as appropriate
throughout.

Вам также может понравиться