Effect of Community and Socio-Economic Factors on Cardiovascular, Cancer and Cardio-Oncology Patients with COVID-19
, Martha Terris 2,6, Nagla Abdel Karim 2,3, Amany Keruakous 2,3, David Gutterman 7,8, Kirsten Beyer 9, Melinda Stolley 10, Sherry-Ann Brown 8 and Avirup Guha 2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting study, well written that gives a good overview of the health disparities based on socio-economic factors and community status in cardiovascular and cancer patients with a special focus on cardio-oncology in the context of COVID-19.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. Appreciate your input.
Reviewer 2 Report
1. There are a few grammatical, alignment and typographical errors are noted in the manuscript and it should be thoroughly checked and corrected throughout the manuscript. For example,
- in page number 5, table, the word “Lower” may be as “The lower”;
- in page number 5, table, “household were” as “household was”;
- in page number 7, table, “with Black” as “with the Black”;
- in page number 7, table, “to White” as “to the White”;
- in line number 194, the words “myelo-suppressive” may be as “myelosuppressive”;
- in line number 207, “macro environmental” as “macro-environmental”.
2. Check the abbreviations throughout the manuscript and introduce the abbreviation when the full word appears the first time in the text and then use only the abbreviation (For example, Socio-economic status (SE), etc.). And it should be in both abstract as well as in the remaining part of the manuscript. Make a word abbreviated in the article that is repeated at least three times in the text, not all words need to be abbreviated.
3. The literature search should be described in detail. Hence, the authors are encouraged to, How many articles were obtained from each of the search engines? What is the inclusion and exclusion criteria? What is the type of article included in this manuscript? How many articles are included in this manuscript? If possible, a diagram depicting the literature search may be included.
4. The introduction part appears less informative about COVID, thus this section should be indicated as detailed to understand the present work clear.
5. The figures presented in the review are of poor quality (particularly figure 1). It may be changed with high clarity with clear letters.
6. The superscript and subscript have to be given properly (For example, in km2, the 2 should be superscripted). And also the term in vivo should be italic all over the manuscript.
7. The hypothetical repetition may be reduced since a few points are mimicking the same meaning in the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We have made following changes to manuscript:
- Reviewed Grammatical Error and corrected throughout the manuscript.
- Abbreviations have been consistently used and corrected throughout the manuscript.
- New section on Methodology has been added. (Highlighted in the word file)
- Introduction is modified to include more information about the COVID-19 pandemic. (Highlighted in the word file)
- Figure 1 has been enhanced in quality.
- Superscript and Subscript have been corrected.
- Repetition has been reviewed and minimized.
Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
