Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please find my comments below. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

With great interest I read your study about CAPA in critically ill patients with COVID-19 at two tertiary hospitals in the UK.

You highlighted an important topic for the ICU community - CAPA in severly ill patients with COVID-19. Most important issues around this complicated topic are outlined. 

I have only two comments:

Line 191: COVID-19, not COVID

Methods: Please check with the editorial office if a an approval from local ethics committee is necessary before publication or not.

Author Response

Many thanks for your comments and suggestions. 

Line 191 COVID-19: Changed

Methods: Please check with the editorial office if a an approval from local ethics committee is necessary before publication or not.

We did not seek ethical approval as it was not required because: 

1. Patients were not randomised 
2. There were no changes to treatment or service for/to patients 
3. Results were not generalisable as the evaluation was a snap shot of Newcastle Hospitals. 

Additionally: The Data was all retrospective and freely available to the treating clinicians (authors). The study was looking for the prevalence and associated co-morbidities of those admitted with the condition and not analysing identifiable data. The study was registered as a service evaluation/clinical audit and therefore the governance falls within registration on the clinical effectiveness register of the Trust.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised version improved the quality of the manuscript.