Nursing-Sensitive Outcomes among Patients Cared for in Paediatric Intensive Care Units: A Scoping Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all, I want to congratulate the authors for the work done and for the bibliographic sources consulted. 
In second, and given that the limitations themselves explain the need for a subgroup analysis, I invite you to continue working in this line.  Finally, The discussion is good, however, a little more work should be done on the conclusions for the article to be published.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, 

This is a good systemic review article exploring the status quo of nursing-sensitive outcome at pediatric intensive care units. Among 46 reviewed research articles, three-level outcome were categorized as: clinical improvement as measured by clinical outcomes; patient care safety as measured by safety outcomes; and promotion of fundamental care needs, as measured by functional outcomes. The main context and supplementary is sound and well written following the general rule of meta-analysis. 

My concern is what key message the authors plan to deliver to readers and authors' suggestion to nurses in their clinical practices. I suggest that the authors can summarize a table and categorize the popular measures to nursing sensitive outcomes based on your finding. Thereafter, the readers can adopt these measures at their daily work accordingly. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate the opportunity given to me in requesting my review of this manuscript.

Although it is a well-developed paper, I consider that some slight modifications would improve the document.

INTRODUCTION

It briefly shows what NSOs are and their possible consequences to children hospitalized in NICU. Use updated bibliography to present that reality.

METHODS

Clearly and briefly describe the steps followed in the review. However, some details would be convenient to modify.

1. When talking about study selection, the task performed by each researcher is indicated, and it seems that there is a mistake when identifying the second researcher with his initials (since it appears as AD and according to the list of authors, it should be AC). This author also appears as AD in section 2.7 in the methods section.
2. When discussing the inclusion and exclusion criteria presented in Table 2, the exclusion criteria are presented instead of the inclusion criteria. It is incorrect, considering that a document should be excluded from the review after being previously included. If it is impossible to establish other inclusion criteria, only the inclusion criteria can be shown in Table 2.
3. Why do you consider initially only papers written in English? Have they not even considered including papers written in Italian?

Be aware: In table 1’s footnote, CINAHL is not written correctly.

RESULTS

They are visually arranged in a table, although it is a bit large. Perhaps one table for each sub-domain and the subsequent text to clarify the information shown could help the reader better understand this section.

DISCUSSION

Well structured. It highlights the most relevant aspects identified in the analysis of results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx