Retrospective Study of the Epidemiological–Clinical Characteristics of Burns Treated in a Hospital Emergency Service (2018–2022)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting albeit limited study of sub-types of burn admission and treatment. a number of areas need you attention as shown below.

Lines	Comment
23	The aim of the study is not mentioned
32	Difficult to know what is new in this paper, simply alignment “with previous research on burn”
52-54	A bit of repetitious text. More concision needed.
65	“1,000 patients admitted” in what location, worldwide, Spain, their hospital? 5% of 120,000 is 6000; in Spain alone!
188	Typo .5% should be 0.5%. the same issue is found elsewhere.
190	What is 6.1.?
206	Table 3 is confusing. Age is not in the table, what is N? if categories are yes and no, how do you have mean and SD?
256	How does 7.86 days compare with 15 or 19.4?
270	Here and elsewhere in Discussion, results should specify for the range of burns treated at the hospital since not all types were admitted or treated in the hospital. So a global picture may be different.
302	What is the expected manner?
304	Specify what the expected values are.
315	The study that, not who
364-366	No such highlights were analysed or discussed or measured in the paper. Or if did, must have escaped me and should be presented in more details, as this is stated in Conclusions section.
115	why such date range (2018-2022)?
In  Discussion	no socioeconomic status was analysed

I am afraid the data on patients' demographics is limited, as is on the localities of burn incidents and causality.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Throughout, some sentences are far too long; please break them down. 

Author Response

A. Response to Reviewer 1:

First of all, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for all comments and suggestions received from the Reviewer 1. This information has certainly enriched the text for its best understanding, thank you very much indeed. We have clarified the reviewer1’s questions. We have introduced the required changes both in our answers to the specific comments and in the final manuscript V2. 

 

This is an interesting albeit limited study of sub-types of burn admission and treatment. a number of areas need you attention as shown below. 

 

Lines	Comment
23	The aim of the study is not mentioned  Response: Thank you for your comment. The objective has been added in this line.
32	Difficult to know what is new in this paper, simply alignment “with previous research on burn”  Response: Thank you for your comment. The relevance of the study has been added on lines 29-32.  “The relevance of this research lies in the fact that periodic epidemiological studies are essential to monitor changes in diseases, evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, detect outbreaks quickly, update knowledge on risk factors, and guide health policy decisions. This ensures an adapted and effective response to the needs of the population”.
52-54	A bit of repetitious text. More concision needed.  Response: This paragraph has been modified to avoid repetitiveness.
65	“1,000 patients admitted” in what location, worldwide, Spain, their hospital? 5% of 120,000 is 6000; in Spain alone!  Response: Thank you for your comment. This paragraph has been corrected.
188	Typo .5% should be 0.5%. the same issue is found elsewhere.  Response: Thank you. This has been corrected throughout the document.
190	What is 6.1.?  Response: Thank you for your comment. This was a mistake, it has been removed.
206	Table 3 is confusing. Age is not in the table, what is N? if categories are yes and no, how do you have mean and SD?  Response: This table shows the results of the differences in age between patients who do undergo treatment and those who do not, therefore it compares the age that is not categorical, the mean and the SD refer to age. We've made some changes to make it clearer.
256	How does 7.86 days compare with 15 or 19.4?  Response: Thank you for your comment. In our study, the injuries considered and treated were not serious injuries, compared to the studies found.
270	Here and elsewhere in Discussion, results should specify for the range of burns treated at the hospital since not all types were admitted or treated in the hospital. So a global picture may be different.  Response: Thank you for your comment. It should be noted that major burns are not included in this study, which has been indicated in the material and method section. However, we have added this as a limitation of the study, as we did not have the data of these patients at our disposal. In future studies it would be an interesting population to add and to continue our study by adding an important part of this area.
302	What is the expected manner?  Response: We refer to the expected recount according to Chi-square results, we have clarified this in the text.
304	Specify what the expected values are.  Response: We refer to the expected recount according to Chi-square results, we have clarified this in the text.
315	The study that, not who  Response: Thank you, it has been modified.
364-366	No such highlights were analysed or discussed or measured in the paper. Or if did, must have escaped me and should be presented in more details, as this is stated in Conclusions section.  Response: Thank you for your comment. This has not been commented on or discussed in this study, so it is added at this point as limitations of the study. Since we have observed that other studies have taken it into account, ours appears as a limitation and we take it into account to continue with our study in the future.
115	why such date range (2018-2022)?  Response: The period 2018-2022 is a period of convenience for the researchers who set out to carry out this study. When the approval of the ethics committee was requested, the full 5 years prior to said request were taken into account. We have not considered it relevant to explain this in the text, but if the reviewer considers it necessary, we can do so.
In  Discussion	no socioeconomic status was analysed  Response: Thank you for your comment. This variable has not been analysed in this study as we did not have it previously and these data are not available in the hospital database and, as it is a retrospective study, it is not possible to contemplate them. It was not collected, so we take it into account as a limitation of the study and it may be added in future research.

 

I am afraid the data on patients' demographics is limited, as is on the localities of burn incidents and causality. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language 

Throughout, some sentences are far too long; please break them down.  

Response: Revised and corrected throughout the document. 

 

We hope we have now answered all your comments and we are looking forward to hearing from you again.  

 

Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

“Best of all, I hope you always report good quality research and enjoy it.”

 Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this wonderful manuscript. I was interested in your study about description the epidemiological-clinical characteristics of the burn patients.

 Major Comments:

No comments.

 

Minor Comments:

 < Abstract>

(Line 37) Please remove one of the two periods in the last sentence.

 

<Materials and Methods>

(Line 125-136) I wish the authors would add a flow chart showing the overall flow of the analysis of 220 patients through inclusion and exclusion criteria among patients who visited the Hospital Emergency Department of the Hospital Complex of Cáceres (Spain) from 2018 to 2022.

 

<Results>

 

I consider there are more indicators within the data registry of burn patients maintained at the authors' institution. (causes of burns, burn management through hyperbaric oxygen therapy, discharge management, etc.). Although I understand the limitations of a retrospective observational study, I believe that a more in-depth description of the results is necessary.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

1. Response to Reviewer 2:

First of all, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for all comments and suggestions received from the Reviewer 2. This information has certainly enriched the text for its best understanding, thank you very much indeed. We have clarified the reviewer2’s questions. We have introduced the required changes both in our answers to the specific comments and in the final manuscript V2.

 

“Best of all, I hope you always report good quality research and enjoy it.”

 

 Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this wonderful manuscript. I was interested in your study about description the epidemiological-clinical characteristics of the burn patients.

 

 Major Comments:

No comments.

 

Minor Comments:

 < Abstract>

(Line 37) Please remove one of the two periods in the last sentence.

Response: Thank you for your comment. This has been corrected.

 

<Materials and Methods>

(Line 125-136) I wish the authors would add a flow chart showing the overall flow of the analysis of 220 patients through inclusion and exclusion criteria among patients who visited the Hospital Emergency Department of the Hospital Complex of Cáceres (Spain) from 2018 to 2022.

Response:

When collecting the data, only the cases that meet the criteria (diagnosis codes) were selected from the hospital database from the beginning. The only data we have prior to this is the total number of patients treated in the emergency department during that period (605084 patients) so 0,036% of them were included in this research, we have added it (lines 157-159). Since it is done in a single step, the flow chart does not make much sense but that if the reviewer still considers it necessary, we would put it.

 

<Results>

I consider there are more indicators within the data registry of burn patients maintained at the authors' institution. (causes of burns, burn management through hyperbaric oxygen therapy, discharge management, etc.). Although I understand the limitations of a retrospective observational study, I believe that a more in-depth description of the results is necessary.

Response: Thank you for your comment. In this case we do not have the important data you mention, as this is a retrospective study we have only been able to access data available in the hospital databases. This has been added as a limitation. It is also mentioned that these data may be interesting to take into account in future research.

 

Minor editing of English language required.

Response: Revised and corrected throughout the document.

 

We hope we have now answered all your comments and we are looking forward to hearing from you again.

 

Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx