Lessons from Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Smoking Cessation Programs for Cancer Patients
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study aim is important, but there are several major concerns regarding this study.
1. Methods used in this study are unclear. The authors stated that this is original research, however, this study looks like a narrative review.
2. The Abstract is very limited and too short. Please provide comprehensive abstract.
3. Introduction section is unclear. Lines 24-27? Where should it be placed? Moreover, the introduction is very limited. Please provide a comprehensive overview and justification for this topic.
4. The methods section - please provide structured, logical methods in line with scientific standards (see Instruction for Authors).
5. It is unclear how the results match with methods and objectives. These results look like subjective choice made by the authors rather than logical flow.
6. Please add 2-3 practical implications of this study.
Author Response
Review #1 Comments
- Methods used in this study are unclear. The authors stated that this is original research, however, this study looks like a narrative review.
2. The Abstract is very limited and too short. Please provide comprehensive abstract.
3. Introduction section is unclear. Lines 24-27? Where should it be placed? Moreover, the introduction is very limited. Please provide a comprehensive overview and justification for this topic.
.
4. The methods section - please provide structured, logical methods in line with scientific standards (see Instruction for Authors).
5. It is unclear how the results match with methods and objectives. These results look like subjective choice made by the authors rather than logical flow.
6. Please add 2-3 practical implications of this study.
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript examines the cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation programs for patients with cancer. While this is an important topic for consideration, the analysis, results, and discussion do not tie together well, leaving the reader feeling somewhat disjointed. The analytical choices made in the run-up to the systematic review of the literature dampen enthusiasm for the final result.
Specific comments:
The Introduction is well-written and comprehensive.
Line 68: This is the first time the MOH acronym is used. Please spell out.
Line 74: This seems like an odd explanation of a societal perspective for the cost-effectiveness analysis. If it is a societal perspective, why not just call it that? Doesn’t the Minister of Health care about the total cost to society?
Line 77: This seems like a long-winded explanation of why QALYs are the best outcome to use in a CEA, followed by a brief statement that QALYs won’t be used for this paper. Instead, there will be an amorphous ‘better off’ outcome used.
Line 92: Again, there is an explanation of why a specific time frame should be stipulated for the analysis, followed by a statement that this paper won’t be using a specific time frame.
Line 100: I’m assuming there is some typo in the line and that the probability of quitting without a SCP is denoted with a different Y symbol.
Line 204: Figures 4 and 5 are interesting, but they don’t seem to have anything to do with the rather long-winded discussion of ‘better off’ from section 3.1.
Line 272: This seems like an important paragraph, but it comes out of nowhere and doesn’t seem to be connected to the explanation of either the methods or results of the paper up to this point.
Line 286: Again, while this paragraph provides an important perspective for consideration, it doesn’t seem to be connected to the preceding methods or results sections.
Author Response
Review #2 Comments
(1) The Introduction is well-written and comprehensive.
(2) Line 68: This is the first time the MOH acronym is used. Please spell out.
(3) Line 74: This seems like an odd explanation of a societal perspective for the cost-effectiveness analysis. If it is a societal perspective, why not just call it that? Doesn’t the Minister of Health care about the total cost to society?
(4) Line 77: This seems like a long-winded explanation of why QALYs are the best outcome to use in a CEA, followed by a brief statement that QALYs won’t be used for this paper. Instead, there will be an amorphous ‘better off’ outcome used.
(5) Line 92: Again, there is an explanation of why a specific time frame should be stipulated for the analysis, followed by a statement that this paper won’t be using a specific time frame.
(6) Line 100: I’m assuming there is some typo in the line and that the probability of quitting without a SCP is denoted with a different Y symbol.
(7) Line 204: Figures 4 and 5 are interesting, but they don’t seem to have anything to do with the rather long-winded discussion of ‘better off’ from section 3.1.
(8) Line 272: This seems like an important paragraph, but it comes out of nowhere and doesn’t seem to be connected to the explanation of either the methods or results of the paper up to this point.
(9) Line 286: Again, while this paragraph provides an important perspective for consideration, it doesn’t seem to be connected to the preceding methods or results sections.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The Authors addressed all the comments.
However, please provide a more informative abstract. The Abstract should be precise and informative, and methods should be underlined, as most of the reader's screen abstracts before the full-text read. This is crucial to increase a visibility and potential impact of this manuscript.
Author Response
Review 1 would like, "a more informative abstract. The Abstract should be precise and informative, and methods should be underlined, as most of the reader's screen abstracts before the full-text read. This is crucial to increase a visibility and potential impact of this manuscript."
We have revised the Abstract to be more informative.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is much improved from the original submission.
Author Response
Review 2 wrote, "The manuscript is much improved from the original submission."
We appreciate the comment.