Evaluation of Current Antiemetic Therapy Response in Patients Undergoing MEC or HEC Regimens in Portugal
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors of paper entitled, “Evaluation of current antiemetic therapy response in patients undergoing MEC or HEC regimens in Portugal” have tried to compare the guidelines given by international scientific societies such as MASCC, ESMO or NCCN for preventing acute and delayed nausea and vomiting by HEC/MEC in CINV with recommendations of Portuguese Oncology Nursing Association. Some significant queries need to be addressed for its betterment, which are as follows
1. The whole idea of the research is concluded with the inference that prophylaxis treatment was overall effective in the prevention of emesis in 72% of the cycles (lines 209-212), there is still space for improvement. I wonder, if it is overall effective then how come authors concluded that these results disclosed that the doublet regimen is insufficient to prevent CINV episodes in MEC/HEC patients. Secondly, authors have written that no significant differences in the patients’ quality of life were detected (line 228). Both of these inferences suggested that regimen recommended by Portuguese Oncology Nursing Association is not at all lesser effective than as recommended by MASCC/ESMO and NCCN. So authors should clearly discuss this thing in the discussion section otherwise contradiction is perplexing.
2. Detailed inclusion/exclusion criteria is missing in the methodology section, which should be given with a figure showing flow chart clearly exhibiting the data collection protocol.
3. In sample size distribution, authors should write about the procedure used for sample size determination supplemented with references wherever these are required.
4. Authors should give the details of all those centers which have been involved in the present study, information on their level of participation and sample taken from them
5. In table 1, IQR of age at baseline (years) should be corrected and rewritten.
6. In the result section, line number 155-156, authors should define the meaning of the sentence Error! Reference source not found and what does it mean in this context.
7. Full form of abbreviations should be written wherever they come for the first time, for example in line number 75, Neurokinin -1 receptor antagonist (NK1 ras) should be written. Check abbreviation in the whole text.
8. Rewrite the line numbers 63-67 starting from Moreover…. to reports outcome, as the meaning is not clear.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The document is well written and the analysis methodology is adequate. The results are consistent and well discussed. However, I do not know how relevant the topic is and what has been found in this manuscript for the clinical practice and to improve the conditions of patients with chemotherapy.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx