All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
All issues raised during the review process were addressed satisfactorily
All my previous comments have been satisfactorily addressed.
All my previous comments have been satisfactorily addressed.
All my previous comments have been satisfactorily addressed.
Although reviewer #1 made no further comments on the manuscript, there are issues raised by reviewer 2 that deserve full consideration. As you will gather from the comments, reviewer #2 noted that the some issues raised initially were not addressed sufficiently and also made specific comments on the study methodology and robustness of the findings. All issues raised must be addressed thoroughly and unequivocally in the revised version.
No further issues
No further issues
No further issues
Insufficient context and not enough motivations based on existing gaps. This concern was raised initially and unfortunately not being addressed sufficiently.
Choices of variables not being supported from the literature. Also, experiment details are lacking as being mentioned in the first round.
Since majority of key variables (based on the literature and other studies) are missing, I would be concerned about generalizing the outcomes and findings.
This paper makes an interesting and novel contribution to the literature on the survival of patients treated for ESKD and is richly deserving of publication. The authors are to be congratulated for their well designed and adequately powered research work.
You should note and respond to the useful comments about your statistical methods made by one of the reviewers. Also, it is essential to get some input from a native English speaker as while your meaning is quite clear, some of the grammar and syntax you have used is not yet at a publishable standard.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
Some English language issues will likely be cleared up in the editing process.
A few of note:
1) line 16- 1%11% should be 1-11%
2) line 35- "We conducted a retrospective matched cohort" should be "We conducted a retrospective matched cohort study"
3) line 46- "criteria" should be "characteristics"
1) mention in the abstract and in line 92 that "multivariable" logistic regression analaysis was performed.
2) The authors state they performed multivariate analysis with only a few variables (age, SOFA-renal score, ESKD) to avoid "overparameterization". However, it is standard practice in these types of studies to perform univariate logistic regression with all relevant variables, then identify those that are significant or approach significance (usually with P value <0.1) and include them in multivariate analysis. It would be preferable if the authors could do this. If not, I accept their explanation of "overparameterization", but this should also be mentioned in the methods section when discussing the multivariate logistic regression analysis.
3) I would classify the ICU comorbidities as post-surgical outcomes and include them as secondary outcomes, rather that baseline characteristics. As such, I think they would benefit from being in a separate table instead of included in Table 1.
1) in the abstract, the sentences "Patients baseline characteristics between the ESKD and non-ESKD were similar as in priori matching criteria, which were all p>0.05). Pre-existing diabetes mellitus and hypertension were found more in ESKD significantly (p=0.03 and 0.04, respectively)" contradict each other. It should be mention that baseline characteristics were similar "except for" diabetes and hypertension.
2) It would be worthwhile for the authors to analyse and discuss the causes of mortality in the ESKD and non-ESKD cohorts and if there was a difference herein. I can see that the cohorts did not differ in terms of incidence of comorbidities during their ICU stay. Therefore, which comorbidities actually led to the increased mortality of ESKD patients?
Discussion section needs to be revised. Also, the overall paper can benefit from English editing. See my comments for the details.
There are several minor concerns regarding the choice of matching criteria, as well as outcome variables. See my comments.
Findings can be further validated using similar works from the literature. I mentioned a few areas for improvement in my comments.
See the attachment.
This is a retrospective study conducted with ESRD patients underwent major operation in single institute. The manuscript is well written, but still lack of something need to elucidate. 1. As the title mentioned, the study groups were ESRD and no-ESRD, however in the ESRD group in post-operative ICU care, what did the patients receive dialysis therapy, still HD or CVVH?
2.In the comparison group, ie, no-ESRD patients, was there any AKI, acute kidney injury, and need further transient treatment to stablize their hemodynamic, fluid status, intake/output...?
3. What were the cause of death in this study? And it is better to present in tables to offer more details.
well
This is a retrospective study conducted with ESRD patients underwent major operation in single institute. The manuscript is well written, but still lack of something need to elucidate. 1. As the title mentioned, the study groups were ESRD and no-ESRD, however in the ESRD group in post-operative ICU care, what did the patients receive dialysis therapy, still HD or CVVH?
2.In the comparison group, ie, no-ESRD patients, was there any AKI, acute kidney injury, and need further transient treatment to stablize their hemodynamic, fluid status, intake/output...?
3. What were the cause of death in this study? And it is better to present in tables to offer more details.
This is a retrospective study conducted with ESRD patients underwent major operation in single institute. The manuscript is well written, but still lack of something need to elucidate. 1. As the title mentioned, the study groups were ESRD and no-ESRD, however in the ESRD group in post-operative ICU care, what did the patients receive dialysis therapy, still HD or CVVH?
2.In the comparison group, ie, no-ESRD patients, was there any AKI, acute kidney injury, and need further transient treatment to stablize their hemodynamic, fluid status, intake/output...?
3. What were the cause of death in this study? And it is better to present in tables to offer more details.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.