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.
Thanks for completing the minor revisions. The paper is now ready for publication. Congratulations!
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Acceptable
The authors carefully addressed the corrective changes and suggestions for overall enhancement suggestions.
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
None.
Congratulations on your submission. The reviewers have recommended minor revisions. Please submit the minor revisions as suggested by the reviewers within 21 days please. Happy to address any questions or comments I can.
A total of 304 patients with septic shock were included in this study, with 226 (74.34%) in the survivor group and 78 (25.66%) in the non-survivor group.
This is a well-organized and clearly understandable presentation of the study plans. It is, written in unambiguous, and professional English language used throughout.
This retrospective cohort study is well-designed and executed. However, in addition, it could be presented as an improved flowchart replacing Figure 1.
Appears based on a well-standardized data set that was sincerely analyzed.
Please follow the specifics in the 'general comments' section and update your manuscript.
Line 14: In the abstract the ‘Background’) is too short and it overviews the primary objective of this study of this study in one sentence only. We look forward to seeing the ‘background’ here or changing the heading to ‘Objectives’. Conclusion; - Add a brief conclusion to the abstract
Line 59, 74-90: Please explain the defining criteria of APACHE II, SOFA, and the proposed model in a comparative table.
Line 193-195: How the model was validated, compared, and appeared better than SOFA and APACHE II, please explain.
Line 246: < Future studies are warranted to confirm these findings.> Who warranted the future studies/ Please re-phrase the statement.
no comment
no comment
no comment
This study aimed to develop a prediction model for 28-day mortality in septic shock. The author performed an interesting nomogram. However, before publication can be considered, some revisions are needed:
Title
- The title should present the research design and dynamic nomogram.
Abstract
- The background is unclear, please rewrite.
- What clinical data was collected?
- This is a cohort study, and what I would prefer to see in the results section is how many patients died within 28 years
- The contents of the results section need to be rewritten. The statement here is confusing “In the training set, compared with the developed model, the SOFA and APACHE II demonstrated LOWER discrimination for 28-day mortality. In the testing set, the developed model had GREATER discrimination than the SOFA and APACHE”. How to discriminate the 28-day mortality? How to understand? These two sentences are not equivalent.
- An online dynamic nomogram? The link needs sharing. Not mentioned in the methods section.
Introduction
- An online dynamic nomogram was not mentioned. Why conduct? What are the advantages?
Methods
- Please categorize the variables and provide the basis for selecting them.
- The development of the online dynamic nomogram was not mentioned.
Results
- The content of the dynamic nomogram should be a separate module.
- The figure of the case needs to be provided.
Discussion
- There is no need to replicate the results, and more importantly, what are the implications of these findings.
- How to use dynamic nomogram for clinicians?
Tables
- Table 1 is too long. The rows of patients without history of diseases can be removed.
- Table 2 also needs to be simplified.
Figures
- The quality of Figure 1 is poor, please redraw.
- What does the ROC curve refer to, please describe it in detail.
References
- References from recent years need to be added.
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.