Health Checks for People with Down Syndrome: A Pooled Analysis of Three Randomized Controlled Trials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I hope this message finds you well. I recently had the opportunity to read your article, "Health Checks for People with Down Syndrome: an Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Three Randomized Controlled Trials" and I wanted to express my appreciation for your valuable contribution and commend your team for the thorough exploration of the trials, providing a comprehensive overview of the benefits associated with health checks for individuals with intellectual disabilities and the possible implications of robust health checks for this cohort. While I acknowledge the overall strength of your paper, I have taken the liberty to highlight a few areas that, in my opinion, could benefit from further clarification or expansion. These points, which I have detailed in the attached document, are intended to contribute constructively to strengthen the paper and enhance its understanding. Well done on your article and you open a window for future work which will be invaluable to clinicians in the field.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is well written and structured, interesting for experts dealing with the health care of persons with disabilities. The topic corresponds to the special issue "Mental and Physical Health and Well-Being of Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities". The study has more of a professional than a scientific contribution.

The authors wanted to evaluate the effects of additional health checks in people with Down syndrome. Using the analysis of three of their previous studies, they analyzed data on 216 patients of different ages.

In the introductory part, the subject of the manuscript is briefly and adequatly presented. I would suggest adding either a clearly formulated problem or research objectives at the end of the introduction.

In the material and methods, the authors state that they used a meta-analysis of their three previously published studies. Given that data were used for subgroups of respondents in the mentioned research, which were not published as such in published papers, I think that it is not a meta-analysis (Haidich AB. Meta-analysis in medical research. Hippokratia. 2010 Dec;14(Suppl 1):29-37. PMID: 21487488; PMCID: PMC3049418.), but a new analysis of the results of a subgroup of people with Down syndrome. Accordingly, the term meta-analysis should also be avoided in the title as well as in the entire manuscript..

The data collection process itself is clearly and thoroughly explained.

Finally, M&M should add what kind of statistical procedures were applied and under what conditions.

In the results, it is necessary to explain the lower part of Table 1 (under Clinical Records) in two or three sentences, so that it is clear what the given data represent.

The discussion is well written, but I would suggest that it should be emphasized what is the new quality that this analysis and manuscript has brought to work with people with Down syndrome, and to whom these data are primarily intended.

The conclusion should be more oriented to the results of this study and its outcomes

Returning now to the abstract, it is not clear why the last sentence would be the conclusion of the study and how implementation would be the focus of the research. Maybe specify which aspects of implementation - challenges, effects, etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations to the authors. They were very open to suggestions and managed to improve the manuscript.