Next Article in Journal
The Effect of Face Mask Use on COVID-19 Models
Previous Article in Journal
Contemporary Distribution, Estimated Age, and Prehistoric Migrations of Old World Monkey Retroviruses
Article
Peer-Review Record

Relationship between the Number of Deaths Due to Renal Failure and Air Temperature Parameters in Hokkaido and Okinawa Prefectures, Japan

Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Received: 24 November 2020 / Revised: 20 January 2021 / Accepted: 1 February 2021 / Published: 4 February 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is an interesting study and shows unique results

I have just one question. Is there a difference in mortality rate in the normal population between the two regions?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors represent data on renal failure deaths and temperature role in 2 regions in Japan. The originality and novelty of the study are very high. I can note that the study adds to the existing knowledge-base. The title reflects the content of the paper. It has a logical construction and is written in a clear and easily understandable style. The design of the study is consistent with its aims. The methods are modern and clearly described at all.
The paper doesn’t include a clear statement that the Local Ethical Committee made ethical approval.
But there are some criticisms. The conclusion part of the paper is limited. I suggest to expand it.
The data presentation belongs to the advantages of the paper. The results and any statistical tests are presented clearly and unambiguously (tables, figures).
From my point of view, the conclusions are clear set up. But they are followed by the experimental results. It has no clinical data approval. The discussion section is not a critique. It is not discussed the methodology used in the paper.
The references are accurate, up-to-date, and relevant. However, the paper could be accepted and published.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Thank you for the thoughtful and constructive feedback you provided regarding our manuscript, Relationship between the Number of Deaths due to Renal Failure and Air Temperature Parameters in Hokkaido and Okinawa Prefectures, Japan (epidemiologia-1031178)

 

 

Point 1: The paper doesn’t include a clear statement that the Local Ethical Committee made ethical approval.

 

Response 1: According to your advice, we are already described on page 3, Line 65-68.

Ethics

All data used in the present study were obtained from official websites. The Ethical Committee in Sakaide City Hospital, Sakaide, Japan approved this study (Number: 2020-011, Date: October 30, 2020).

 

 

Point 2: The conclusion part of the paper is limited. I suggest to expand it.

 

Response 2: According to your advice, we added as a conclusion of this study. Line 118-121.

The present results suggest that the relationship between the number of deaths due to renal failure and air temperature parameters differs between Hokkaido and Okinawa. Lower air temperature was thought to be closely associated with the number of deaths due to renal failure particularly in Hokkaido, Japan. Further studies using individual data would be needed in the future.

 

 

Point 3: They are followed by the experimental results. It has no clinical data approval.

 

Response 3: According to your advice, we think of this way. All data used in the present study are official public data and have been approved by the Ethics Committee in Sakaide City Hospital, Kagawa, Japan.

 

 

Point 4: The discussion section is not a critique. It is not discussed the methodology used in the paper.

 

Response 4: According to your advice, we think as follows.

The present study was an ecological study, and, thus, the results obtained may not apply to individuals. Furthermore, individual data was not evaluated. From now on, further studies using individual data are urgently required.

 

We have already described in discussion section (L111-113).

The present study was an ecological study, and, thus, the results obtained may not apply to individuals. Furthermore, individual data was not evaluated.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.


Back to TopTop