A Randomised Controlled Study of Low-Dose High-Frequency In-Situ Simulation Training to Improve Newborn Resuscitation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript which aims to analyse the effectiveness of a scheduled simulation program in a tertiary centre in a developed country.
Its design as a randomized controlled trial, makes its results more valuable and allows for throwing more robust conclusions. Moreover, the practical approach of the study and its reproducibility in a particular clinical setting is of great value.
I haven’t found any accuracy between the objectives described and the results exposed. Tables and figures are easy to understand. Also, the discussion is well orientated following the results description. Strengths and limitations are appropriately described. Therefore, I haven’t got any major changes to suggest.
However, I have seen some typos and methodological mistakes.
I will highlight some typo mistakes to start:
- Line 113: Resusciatation
- Line 123: Paritcipants
Line 147: Table 1. shows the distribution of participants from the six professional groups.
This sentence explaining the contents of table 1 should have been written after the last sentence in line 143, not between a figure and a table with no connection with the text. The table has already its title.
Line 189: Figure 5 legend. The legend doesn’t have to include the interpretation of the data, which has been explained in the text already. So I suggest to re-write the legend according to this.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors did a very detailed investigation, how to keep up knowledge and skills in Newborn resuscitation over a longer time. The scientific approach is adequate, limitations were described.
The conclusions describe an improvement in PPV competence for all members of the multidisciplinary teams. The study shows clearly the value of training both of knowledge and of skills. The actual limitations of regular training are important and described as well, and might offer an approach for improvement, especially in a long-time pandemic situation.
The optimal frequency and intervals of the training remain unclear, as the setting of the study was not designed to answer this question.
Author Response
Thank you for your review of our manuscript. We appreciate your comments. We note that you have not requested any revision of the manuscript. Some revisions have been made according to the suggestions of reviewer 1.
Once again, thank-you for your time and expertise in the review of our manuscript.
