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 have addressed all of the reviewers' comments and the manuscript is ready for publication.
The authors appropriately revised this manuscript according to the suggestions.
-
The results are not significantly different from those previously reported, but they can be evaluated as indicating the characteristics of a particular region.
Reviewer 2 has some additional comments for you to address.
IT CAN BE ACCEPTABLE
GOOD
ENOUGH
EVERYTHING IS ACCEPTABL
The patient backgrounds that I pointed out in my initial peer review were discussed in detail. This seems to have increased the credibility of this study.
There is no problem.
The article shows good validity for publication.
While the effort to increase the credibility of the study is well done, the discussion part is redundant. The attempt to explain the mechanism of the pneumonia-related factors extracted in the model created is commendable, but it is felt to be a bit of an over-estimation. The discussion section should be reduced to about half of the current volume.
Please make it clear what the contribution of this work is in light of existing publications in this area.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
In this paper authors reported risk factors for pneumnoia development in chronic hemodialysis. patients. They found that seven factors such as age, diabetes, LVMI, pleural fluid, WBC, A/G, CHD.
This study is retrospective. exclusion and inclusion criterias can be acceptable. statistically analysis s enough and appropriate. Tables and figures are enough
This study retrosective . the nmber of patients are enough. criterias of exclusion/inclusion are good. the criterias of diagnosis of neumonia are acceptible
statically method is enough
The results are presented in tables and figures. These are descriptive and enough
All results were discussed with literature support.
This section can be shortened
The authors performed a backward-looking analysis of risk assessment and prediction models for pneumonia in Chinese maintenance hemodialysis patients. Although the analytical methods and data presentation are precise, modifications are necessary for publication in this journal. The modifications are described below.
Background of the patient population is not provided.
Epidemiological studies of hemodialysis patients must take into account the characteristics of the region. Indication of basic patient background is indispensable for this purpose. Failure to present information such as patient age, gender, underlying disease leading to renal failure, type of dialyzer, dialysis volume such as KT/V, dialysis time, and medications will compromise the reliability of the analysis results.
There is no problem with the analytical methods, but I feel that too many analytical methods are being used too often, and conversely, the reliability of the models presented is being compromised with respect to their validity.
The results presented are very valid, but the differences from the results of previous studies seem unclear.
None.
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.