Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Table 1 presents data only for males? Were there any female patients in the cohort? 

Middle part of Table 1 (Biomarkers) should be presented in a figure

In discussion: Paragraph 1 has a conclusion. Which data supports that conclusion? Also, in the discussion indicate whether there was a postive or negative correlation, weak or strong. 

Clinically, how is this manuscript relevant? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. In the attachment is a point-to-point response. The comments are listed C1, C2, C3, etc. Responses correspond to this and are listed e.g. R_C1, R_C2, R_C3 etc.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

this is an interesting study exploring the association of clotting related biomarkers during AECOPD with subsequent MACE at 36 m follow up

comments:

1. the conclusion that VWF-N is associated with subsequent MACE appears to based on marginal statistical significance. The unadjusted hazard ratio had p value > 0.05. Adjust HR said to be 0.05.  

2. Table 2 should include overall MACE with corresponding values included.

3. For death in table two, it appears that the high vWF-N group had lower mortality than the high group, which contradicts the text 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. In the attachment is a point-to-point response. The comments are listed C1, C2, C3, etc. Responses correspond to this and are listed e.g. R_C1, R_C2, R_C3 etc.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The current study confirmed an association between VWF-N and future MACE, but without significant. Concering MACE is the primary outcome, some vital confounder factors such as  peripheral arterial disease history, stain treatment were not included in a multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. In the attachment is a point-to-point response. The comments are listed C1, C2, C3, etc. Responses correspond to this and are listed e.g. R_C1, R_C2, R_C3 etc.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

V2 is a great version of the manuscript.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Figure 4 needs labels for the two panels. I assume the top is unadjusted cox regression HR and bottom one is adjusted. also legend should stat the outcome is MACE

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The current study confirmed an association between VWF-N and future MACE, both in unadjusted and adjusted models. The discussion part is short and need more information, such as potential mechanisms and impact of public health or clinical practice.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx