Can Different Admissions to Medical School Predict Performance of Non-Technical Skill Performance in Simulated Clinical Settings?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear All,
It was with great interest that I read this insightful article. As a reviewer I would like to ask the authors to revise the following:
1) The organisation of simulation-based training should be described more thoroughly
(it should include, for example, the manner of executing simulation scenarios, prebriefing, debriefing).
2) The Reference list should contain sources published in the past 3 years.
The research methodology was selected correctly, taking into consideration the nature of the research. The paper was written in an clear and understandable way, without unnecessary repetitions.
Author Response
PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript "Predictive value and prognosis of different admissions to medical school for non-technical skills performance in clinical emergency training" can be a good work, however, the authors must reinforce their writing. Some points noted by this reviewer are mentioned.
• The title should not have words cut off or separated by hyphens, even if they are at the end of the line of writing.
• In the introduction there are undeclared acronyms (PEA, MMI for example), improve this.
• There are finger errors.
• Some sentences may be a bit long for you to understand.
• The introduction should be greatly improved. The Introduction is to provide the reader with sufficient background to allow him to place the topic and the article in the context of past and present literature. The literature to be cited in this section must be carefully chosen and it must be made clear why, given all this information, the article presented is necessary. In addition, there are finger errors in writing.
• In section 2.1 improve the explanation, “Advanced Cardiac” is part of the first year, “Third year” twice.
• Improve and reinforce the explanation of why conduct the study with 1st and 2nd-year university students. Mention because it should be a selection method for students at the pre-university level, and this study was with university students.
• Due to the preparation of the 1st and 2nd-year students, it is logical that they will have a better performance. How ensuring that the results are not influenced?
• Correct the format of Figure 1, (remove the frame, some lines are thin, etc.)
• There are font size errors (for example, line 262).
• In the discussion there is a large number of quotes that attracts a lot of attention. However, the discussion of what is exposed in the work, which is usually done together with the results, constitutes an essential part in which the results shown in the article must be analyzed, discuss their meaning, analyze their scope, and compare them. with other results from the literature. What needs to be done is to explain if the observed behavior is acceptable, is expected, and agrees with the results of others, if it is similar, the reason for the observed behavior should be explained. After the Introduction section, this section is the one that should have enough citations to justify and convince the reader of the veracity of the results. The discussion is very simple and not totally convincing.
• There are no conclusions (they should not be combined with the discussions)
• Review the format of the references
• More than 81% of the citations are more than 5 years old, it is recommended to improve this since it makes the proposed topic current.
Author Response
PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled "Predictive value and prognosis of different admissions to medical school for non-technical skills performance in clinical emergency training" covers a relevant topic. The following are a number of considerations or observations that I believe may be helpful in reflecting on various aspects of the manuscript:
- The title provides a lot of information and that is positive, however, a revision of the title is necessary to try to narrow down and summarize the main idea. It may be too long and should be shortened.
- The abstract presents an adequate internal structure. It would be interesting to include the percentage of girls or boys participating in the study to make the gender or sex variable visible. Also the mean age and standard deviation, since the courses themselves provide a lot of information if you share a similar educational system, however, if the article is read from a country whose system differs greatly from that one, it may be difficult to locate the students.
- Keywords are very useful. It is recommended to put the keywords in alphabetical order unless there is another order that you decide to respect - for example, by order of importance. One of the keywords could be aimed at defining the design or procedure followed. On the other hand, four key words have been included; there would be room to include some more.
- The introduction provides a very interesting and timely theoretical framework. It would be interesting to increase the theoretical framework by providing more references and length in the development of the ideas. Regarding the citation format, the use of parentheses should be revised. Square brackets should be used for citing references.
- The specific objectives derived from the general objective should appear at the end of the introduction.
- Regarding the methodology, the description of the participants should be included in this section, instead of in the results section.
- The instrument used should be described to a greater extent: cronbach's alpha, examples of items for each dimension, etc.
- The results could be structured according to the specific objectives of the introduction.
- As for the discussion, the information provided is adequate. Anyway, it is recommended to review the use of the first person in verbs. It would be better to use impersonal tenses. It is recommended that this aspect be reviewed throughout the manuscript.
- The limitations of the study should be made more explicit.
- It is possible that the contributions of each author could be synthesized / summarized.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Author Response
PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors. This Paper is well written and proven statistically.
Yet, there are several concerns I'd like to share with You.
General comment - be so kind and not implement postulates without referring (line 46) and minor checking of Your text would be welcome.
Moreover - the novelty of this paper is questionable. There are many publications related to this area.....
Further
Line 31.
The construct of competency (competence) consists of three parameters: the knowledge, skills, the attitude (as a whole):
See. f.e.
https://scholar.google.pl/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=pl&user=O43rdnEAAAAJ&citation_for_view=O43rdnEAAAAJ:_kc_bZDykSQC
https://scholar.google.pl/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=pl&user=O43rdnEAAAAJ&sortby=pubdate&citation_for_view=O43rdnEAAAAJ:QoJ_w57xiyAC
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00332941221132992
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886920300064
There is no reason to differentiate “technical skills” if there are “technical” requirements to fill to get a job. The title of Your article is clear in this matter.
Line 152 R2 instead of R^2
Line 157-159 What was the reason of rejection of 109 participants? This information should be included.
192 Participiants?
Fig.1 Fonts should be coherent with the main text
Author Response
PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors made changes that improved the article.
