Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article is very interesting. It contains new original data on the epidemiology of a new coronavirus in Wuhan. The data presented by the authors are of great interest to virologists, epidemiologists and medical professionals

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and recognition!

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Population movement data for China during the novel Coronavirus epidemic will be very beneficial, denominator data is often difficult to access. Changyu Fan et al., manuscript helps to provide that.

Comments:

Major - Figure 1, a map is essential and was not included in the downloadable PDF. It is key to visualisation of the messages enclosed in the manuscript and very important for those not familiar with the geographical areas with in China.

Minor -

Introduction - update the virus nomenclature and include the changing case definitions - confirmed positive by test (PCR etc), clinically 'positive' date changes for these, table 9.

Methods -   Data Sources: CMDS data was 2013-2017,  elsewhere in text/tables 2013-2018 figures are quoted, clarify discrepancy. Was data 2013-2018 or are 2018 data based on an estimate of previous years?

Clarify the dates of the 2020 Spring Festival for non-familiar readers.

 

Results - page 9, text - [CI] figures as exact numbers, as they are an estimate I suggest that they would be better represented as xxx,0000. Bottom of page refers to table above when the e age data is shown in table 5 (end of manuscript).

Page 16 - suggest that the authors / editors may want to review the use of "false information" and "intentionally concealed" incorrect data, delay in data collation, true figures not available or revealed.

The focus in on the travelling population but the interaction between this and the resident population has not been discussed.... this point should be addressed.

page 19 "mobilisation" should be should read immobilisation, check context. "businessmen" make it gender neutral

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your detailed comments. The response to your comments is upload as a attachment.

Yours Sincerely,

Linping Liu.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors:

I have read with interest the manuscript entitled "Prediction of epidemic spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus driven by Spring Festival transportation in China: a population-based study" to which I would like to make the following comments:

1. The manuscript explores the very recent epidemic outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) with an approach that tries to estimate the distribution of more than 5 million migrants residing in Wuhan after they returned to their hometown communities in Hubei Province The floating population who have lived in Wuhan for more than one month is analyzed. The perspective may be interesting to establish strategies that, if applied, can minimize the spread of the virus.
2. The abstract, quite explanatory, is excessively long, the magazine's guide states that it should not exceed a total of 200 words. It should be trimmed according to the guide.
3. The introduction is correct, exposes what is known so far about the transmission of the virus and emphasizes the demographic characteristics of the Wuhan Region, high population density, floating population and a Spring Festival held during these dates that entail a holiday period which can contribute to the diffusion of the epidemic focus. The main objective of the study is cited: to analyze "the floating population who have lived in Wuhan for more than one month".
4. A section (research in context) contextualizes the contribution, indicating what is known so far, the value it can add and the implications it can have for decision making.
5. The methodology explains the data source (China Migrants Dynamic Survey), defines the floating population, the treatment of the data, the analysis of the theoretical model of the 2019-nCoV transmission with a quasi-experimental design and the structure of the predictive model.
6. The results are a succession of descriptive elements of the floating population according to different socio-demographic categories and a prediction of the epidemic trend outside the province of Wuhan.
7. No reference was found to ethical considerations given the descriptive characteristics of the study.
8. The limitations of the study have been reviewed.
9. The discussion is slightly speculative, assumes circumstances that could occur and proposes how to overcome the limitations of the study using big data. We could consider this manuscript as a contribution to a new epidemic and with unpredictable behaviour.
10. Most bibliographic citations are from 2020 which indicates the novelty of this outbreak and shows the flood of contributions made in the last month and a half. It is so recent that the authors have not been able to incorporate the new name of the disease (COVID-19), as it was called by the WHO on February 11.
11. The study could be useful for health authorities, especially those in China if they need data to plan strategies to reduce the spread of the epidemic.
12. It could be a publishable text, it would only need to reduce the abstract and if the authors wish, incorporate the term COVID-19.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and recognition.

We have reduced the words of the abstract. As for the term, due to there is no consensus on the virus nomenclature, we consider it would be better to keep the original term, and explained it by “explanatory note” at the end of the manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

The abstract is good buy unusually long. Can it be reduced in length?

The introduction needs a more specific description of the study and analytical objectives - last paragraph.

The pagination for the tables needs to be redone. The tables are large but they need to be on one page if possible. The descriptive tables characterizing the data are difficult to follow with many rows (when split across multiple pages).

I would recommend avoiding the term "show".

This statement is confusing and needs to be rewritten for clarification:

Based on sample survey data, Table 4 shows the proportional estimation of the origins of Wuhan’s floating population at a provincial level, as well as the results of statistical analysis based on a floating population of 5 million.

The distribution of the tables in the draft manuscript make them very difficult to follow. Is there a missing figure?

The paper is a very wordy description of a potentially significant description of the vulnerable population in the Hubei province. I would suggest perhaps limiting the scope of the manuscript with a focus on summaries. As written, this is difficult to follow. But this can be a very important and interesting paper with some revision. 

Author Response

Thank you for your patient review and detailed comments.

I uploaded the response as a attachment, please download it.

We look forward to your reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

This is vastly improved and very readable. This manuscript will be interesting to the general medical and infectious disease scientific community.