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.
The authors properly addressed the comments and requests of the reviewers. Thank you for your scientific contribution.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Stefano Menini, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
I agree with thisver sion
See 1)
I agree with this version
See 3)
Clear, unambiguous, professional English. Extensive literature references. Appropriate medical background and context. Professional organization of the article including tables. Relevant results for this topic.
Primary research in compliance with the aims and scope of the journal. Research well-designed and clinically relevant, with wide patient applicability. Technical and ethical standards above reproach. Detailed and informative methodology.
Valid medical initiative, with the paper encouraging further studies in the field. The data as provided are sound and statistically verified. Conclusions relevant to the topic discussed, with supportive results.
Valid clinical initiative, relevant and applicable to a wide patient population. The paper encourages further research in this field, including internationally. Thank you for drawing attention to this very important worldwide clinical and public health matter.
Please follow and address all comments of the reviewers.
[# 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: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
.
.
.
Non-adherence to anticoagulant therapy is of utmost importance among cardiology patients. Development of the tool for optimizing adherence, therefore, is crucial after discharge from the hospital. Unfortunately, the word “nomogram” might not be used properly in this context. If we use the dictionary definition, where nomogram is a graphic representation that consists of several lines marked off to scale and arranged in such a way that by using a straightedge to connect known values on two lines an unknown value can be read at the point of intersection with another line; then this is a valid word. Personally, I’d prefer to use “tool” or so….
1. Moreover, I do not feel that this title reflects the contents of the article, at all. It appears that authors surveilled patients’ non-adherence behavior of antiplatelet drug treatment, and as a result, they came up with a “nomogram”.
2. Using the net-benefit curve in this instance has the role exclusively in further developments of machine learning appliances, so this potential value should be highlighted adequately.
3. The conclusion section in the abstract is simply repeating the results, I miss the part where you actually conclude something.
4. “Limitations” have to be elaborated more thoroughly. You should not treat the same patients living alone, and those discharged to the family setting. Perhaps, consider using the paper of Marcatto et al., and Hylek – to understand better the importance of age in adherence to the therapy.
5. What does the line labeled “Statistic” in Table 1 mean?
6. When writing decimal numbers, instead of “ 0.890” it is enough to use “0.89” instead
7. of “stable angina pectoris” You might consider the abbreviation “SAP”; the “unstable angina pectoris” respectively; “acute myocardial infarction”… if necessary use footnotes – just try to reduce the size of a table.
Relevant topic in the given geographical context and may also have wider applicability.
The first language of the authors is likely not English. Review by a fluent English-speaking person is recommended. Some of the sentences are worded in a confusing way, thereby limiting the usefulness to a wider audience (e.g., lines 80 to 84; lines 100 to 102; lines 259 to 263; lines 266 to 267; etc.).
Several sentences are extremely long (e.g., lines 181 to 186: 86 words; or lines 245 to 251: 83 words; or lines 307 to 312: 80 words; etc.). Very long sentences make it hard to follow what the intended message is. Please break up very long sentences into 2 or 3 or more shorter sentences in order to improve comprehension. Sentences of 15 to 20 words are the most readable but can be somewhat longer in scientific communications (e.g., up to thirty words or so).
Grammar and punctuation need to be scrutinized and corrected as required. There are multiple punctuation inaccuracies.
21 of the 24 citations are from Chinese (by name) authors. There might be merit in expanding the list to include a more international sample of references (if available), which would also increase the appeal of the contents to an international readership.
Extensive workup to make the topic applicable in a wider setting. It is a retrospective study; hence the conclusions are applicable to the intended audience. Some aspects of the details may not pertain to an international audience (e.g., patient payment methods) but are still valid in the original context.
Good tables with ample data.
Expressive figures; very useful for visual comprehension.
The findings are borne out by the statistical analysis. The conclusions are valid and have practical applicability. Similar studies could also be carried out in other parts of the world. Suggest follow-up review and expansion of the findings in a future article. Very good initiative. Congratulation to the authors.
The contents are good and provide valid data. The English language text in its current form detracts from the message the paper is meant to convey. Remember, content and form both matter.
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.