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.
Dear authors, once again thank you for your submission and congratulations to get it approved for publication. I hope that you consider PeerJ in the future. All the best, Sonia
Dear authors, thank you for your revised version. Before acceptance, I noticed in table 1 that you considered all the statistics related to the total sample (n=258), however the majority of your data sample belongs to females. It would be interesting and useful (since it was quite discussed in your manuscript and is a difference to other works) to include in the table the values for the normalisation to the specific male/female data sample, ie, how many males had diabetes, hypertension, etc... and how many females had diabetes, hypertension, were over 60 yrs old, etc etc . Otherwise, please state in your manuscript why the gender differences have no been considered in your analysis (including univariate, multivariate regression; tables 2, 3).
Also, please consider the attachments sent to you.
Otherwise, great work, and I looking forward to seeing your revision.
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
NIL
Overall the manuscript has improved. The authors addressed my comments.
The explanation and modification in the manuscript are reasonable.
Reasonable.
Authors have addressed my comments in the revised manuscript.
Dear authors, thank you for your submission. Your manuscript has been accepted conditionally upon major revisions.
Please, revise and address the reviewers' comments. Make sure to clarify methods and methodological decisions as well as properly discuss your results.
[# 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. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: PeerJ staff have identified that the English language needs to be improved. When you prepare your next revision, please either (i) have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or (ii) contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. PeerJ can provide language editing services - you can contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
• Methodology: authors stated “This study is a cross-sectional study observing hospitalized COVID-19 patients with comorbidities using medical records”- whether data collection was Cross-sectional prospective or retrospective?
• But from the Discussion it is understood that the data collection was retrospective (“In our study, we were not able to observe some variables due to their unavailability in the 230 patients' medical records or the Lexicomp® database” Lines 229 &230).
• Since more than 50% of pDDIs are related to an increased risk of bleeding- have you noticed any such bleeding reports?
• It would have added more value to this study, if authors follow up with the patients and recorded adverse events with D type DDIs.
1. Overall the structure of the manuscript organisation is ok but the study conclusion is based on a small number of subjects, in a single clinical setting, and the duration of recruitment was only 3 months. These limitations should be brought up in the abstract and conclusions.
2. In a larger clinical setting or in a public hospital setting, the outcomes could be different that we do not know. The authors should justify their outcomes broadly in their discussion section in compare with similar studies in a different context and may be in a different country.
1. The age range of the subjects should be specific NOT just >17 years, it should be a range.
2. Why the authors chose type-D and X pDDIs (according to Lexicomp) were considered. Why they did not anayzed data of other other interactions? Please discuss.
3. Why they chose Lexicomp scale? Please discuss
1. Diabetes is a common known comorbidity of SARS-CoV-2 infection and authors are correct. However, authors could connect diabetes, obesity properly with pDDIs. They should include some supporting data from the literature.
2. Multidrug treatments are associated with pDDIs. Authors could explain their findings broadly in this context.
The limitations should be broadly written in the conclusion section.
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.