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.
Thank for including the few aspects that I have requested.
Thank you for revising the manuscript according to the suggestions of the reviewers. I have looked at the manuscript and I have a few comments to be addressed. First, change to "matched by" instead of "with". Spell out ptl. Specify that the odd ratios appearing near to lines 162-165 were significant. Add one or two sentences to explain the clinical meaning of the values of the odds ratios.
Note that one reviewer who declined to do the full review of your manuscript stated that your work is not original. Several studies have already demonstrated the role of C-reactive protein and LDH as predictors of disease worsening. Therefore, clarify what is the contribution of the present study. Furthermore, include in the revised version the majority of the studies about COVID-19 and the importance of protein C and LDH as markers of disease severity.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
no comment
1. which type of oxygen therapy you mean, is include CPAP
2. SPO2 measurement is the determinant for need of oxygen therapy or other factor?
3. can you make the sample size more than that
1.why you didn't consider the D dimer and ferritin as prognostic markers?
2. how you can explain AST has significant value and ALT not
3. why the age is significant for oxygen therapy
1. what about calculating AUC by taking the combining of more than one test ex: crp+ldh vs crp alone
2.can you explain the non significant effect of vaccine
In this study, the authors to identify the biomarkers predictive of the need for oxygen therapy in patients with COVID-19. The study is interesting, but in the literature there are many published studies.
I suggest doing a more exhaustive review of the literature, including systematic reviews. Consider "Malik et al. Biomarkers and outcomes of COVID-19 hospitalisations: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2021 Jun;26(3):107-108. "
There are grammatical errors. The language can be improved.
Title
There is an error in the title "COVID-2019", it is COVID-19
Title: include the study design following the STROBE guidelines
Abstract.
Include the design in the Methods section.
Include a conclusion section.
Methods section needs more details
Include the study design following the STROBE guidelines.
Include with supplementary information checklist STROBE.
How was a case defined for inclusion in the study? I suggest detailing the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
The criteria for assigning each group should be detailed in the methods section.
Results
I suggest including the STROBE flowchart.
Line 113. We divided the patients into two groups according to the need for oxygen therapy. The criteria for assigning each group should be detailed in the methods section.
Table 1 and lines 120-130. I suggest performing bivariate and multivariate analyzes (crude and adjusted ORs) for all significant results. I suggest correctly interpreting the results "The median patient age was 55 (45.5–72.25) years among those requiring oxygen therapy, versus 44.5 (34.3–52.8) years among those who did not require oxygen therapy (P < 0.001)".
Line 177. There is an error should be figure 4. Alternatively, the analyzes in figure 4 could be performed with adjusted HR instead of OR.
There are two variables that should be included probability of ICU admission and mortality. In addition, it is important to evaluate biomarkers according to the clinical course, i.e., mild, moderate and severe disease. I suggest including these analyzes in the study.
Discussion.
In addition to the limitations described, the authors must include and discuss the sample size and that the two groups may not be comparable (102 vs. 40 patients).
Conclusions.
I suggest revising the conclusions based on the previous comments.
No comments
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.