Comparative Analysis of Epidemiological Outcome of Incidence, Mortality and Lethality by COVID-19 between the States of Espírito Santo and Minas Gerais, Brazil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My opinion on the article: It is scientific and has a novel idea, and the researchers showed the descriptive statistics in a clear way for the readers.

They adopted the scientific method in writing and discussed comparative analysis in a clear and understandable manner.

Minor comments:

First:- The first paragraph in the introduction did not mention any citation. Also, the article needs to restate the various citations in the introduction.

Second:- Please, the lines (429 to 433) need more clarification to show the scientific facts to the reader in a simpler way.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. We believe that your notes were of great value in the construction of our article. We remind you that our changes are highlighted in red.

Comments 1: The first paragraph in the introduction did not mention any citation. Also, the article needs to restate the various citations in the introduction.

Response 1: We have removed the first paragraph. Thank you for your contribution.

Comments 2: Please, the lines (429 to 433) need more clarification to show the scientific facts to the reader in a simpler way.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your attention to this correction. We are working to make the writing clearer and more concise. Therefore, do not hesitate in making your scores. We are at your disposal.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Comparative Analysis of Epidemiological Outcome of Incidence, Mortality and Lethality by COVID-19 between the States of Espírito Santo and Minas Gerais, Brazil

In this study, the authors aim to provides a comprehensive analysis of COVID-19 incidence, mortality, and lethality rates in the Brazilian states of Espírito Santo and Minas Gerais. The authors incorporate public database data to analyze trends and perform statistical tests on the region. While the study's generalizability beyond the studied states and time period is limited, region-specific studies are crucial for understanding the expansion and transmission of new diseases in human populations.  This study holds promise in initiating discussions on regional pandemic impacts, such as those observed during COVID-19. However, there are several specific points and general observations to consider:

·       Abstract Line 22: Repetitive text “In turn, Minas Gerais had a higher fatality rate.” Suggestion: need correction by restructuring some sentences.

·       Introduction- Enhance clarity and conciseness by restructuring some sentences.

·       Line 34: Missing references are noted

·       Line 37: The phrase “forms of transmission” does not make sense

·       Line 60: Missing references are noted

·       Line 58-64: There is no comprehensive overview of existing research on COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2), and there lacks an explanation for the transmission potential of such pathogens and should be supported by relevant references. The author can refer to recent studies such as-

§  10.4269/ajtmh.21-0328

·       Line 101-106: Maintain clarity and organization in study design which has been followed in the study.

·       Line 124: Clarify that the study did not collect data between Jan 2020 to Dec 2022; the data were extracted from public datasets.

·       Line 134: Remove “or city” as no city was included in this study.

·       Line 137-142: Missing clarity on which specific dataset within the website were used for data extraction.

·       Line 143-146: Paragraph lacks clarity and coherence.

·       Line 155-157: While it is mentioned that two researchers independently extracted the data to ensure quality and reliability, there's no mention of any data validation or consistency checks performed to ensure accuracy.

·       Line 159-162: While the study variables are mentioned, such as confirmed cases, confirmed deaths, fatality rate, mortality, and incidence, there is no detailed explanation provided for each variable. It would be helpful to define these variables clearly to avoid any ambiguity.

·       Line 179: “Letality” is spelled wrong.

·       Line 337-338: Needs rephrasing for clarity.

·       Line 347: “analyzes” is spelled incorrectly

·       Line 372-377: Address inconsistencies or unclear messaging for coherence.

·       Line 391-398: Population density is one of the key variables influencing the transmission of Covid-19 and should be supported by relevant references.

·       Line 424-427: Repetitive argument, need to be addressed for coherence.

·       Line 436: missing references are noted

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This paper is well-structured with clear sections like Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. Though entire article is understandable, but there are few sentences where it could be clearer and more concise. Some sentences are repeated or awkwardly structured, making it hard to follow. Additionally, there are also spelling and grammar mistakes that need fixing. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. We believe that your notes were of great value in the construction of our article. We remind you that our changes are highlighted in red.

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Abstract Line 22: Repetitive text “In turn, Minas Gerais had a higher fatality rate.” Suggestion: need correction by restructuring some sentences.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and remove it from the text.

Comments 2: Introduction- Enhance clarity and conciseness by restructuring some sentences.

Response 2: We believe that with the adjustments made we have improved this aspect. However, we are at your disposal. Comments 3: Line 34: Missing references are noted Response 3: We have removed the first paragraph. Thank you for your contribution. Comments 4: Line 37: The phrase “forms of transmission” does not make sense Response 4: Thank you for your note. It certainly contributed to improving our text. Comments 5: Line 60: Missing references are noted Response 5: We correct. Sometimes, for reasons of cohesion in the text and for better understanding, the period was used to end a sentence, but which was coming from the same reference. We adjusted it to make it clearer. Comments 6: Line 58-64: There is no comprehensive overview of existing research on COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2), and there lacks an explanation for the transmission potential of such pathogens and should be supported by relevant references. The author can refer to recent studies such as- §  10.4269/ajtmh.21-0328 Response 6: Thank you very much for your note. We restructured the writing and included this article, which is super relevant. Comments 7: Line 101-106: Maintain clarity and organization in study design which has been followed in the study. Response 7: We have rewritten it to improve clarity. We are available if anything needs to be changed. Comments 8: Line 124: Clarify that the study did not collect data between Jan 2020 to Dec 2022; the data were extracted from public datasets. Response 8: This was actually ambiguous. We are grateful for the correction and therefore, we have adjusted the text. Comments 9: Line 134: Remove “or city” as no city was included in this study. Response 9: We removed "or city", since we used states to list the data. Comments 10:  Line 143-146: Paragraph lacks clarity and coherence. Response 10: We have removed the paragraph. Thank you for your contribution. Comments 11:  Line 137-142: Missing clarity on which specific dataset within the website were used for data extraction. Response 11: We have adjusted the text to make it clearer which data is used from the databases. Comments 12: Line 155-157: While it is mentioned that two researchers independently extracted the data to ensure quality and reliability, there's no mention of any data validation or consistency checks performed to ensure accuracy. Response 12: To be clearer, we rewrote the text. If you still need it, we can improve. Comments 13:  Line 159-162: While the study variables are mentioned, such as confirmed cases, confirmed deaths, fatality rate, mortality, and incidence, there is no detailed explanation provided for each variable. It would be helpful to define these variables clearly to avoid any ambiguity. Response 13: The formulas that differentiate each variable are below, in topic 2.6. However, if necessary, we can add these definitions throughout the text. Comments 14: Line 179: “Letality” is spelled wrong. Response 14: Thank you very much for your thoughtful look. We correct the word. Comments 15: Line 337-338: Needs rephrasing for clarity. Response 15: We have rewritten the sentence for better understanding and clarity. Comments 16:  Line 347: “analyzes” is spelled incorrectly. Response 16: Thank you for your keen eye. The paragraph has been rewritten for adequacy. Comments 17:  Line 372-377: Address inconsistencies or unclear messaging for coherence. Response 17: We have rewritten the sentence for better understanding and clarity. Comments 18:  Line 424-427: Repetitive argument, need to be addressed for coherence. Response 18: We rewrote the paragraph so that it was not repetitive, but still valid for discussing the data. Comments 19:  Line 436: missing references are noted. Response 19: We correct. Sometimes, for reasons of cohesion in the text and for better understanding, the period was used to end a sentence, but which was coming from the same reference. We adjusted it to make it clearer.

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: This paper is well-structured with clear sections like Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. Though entire article is understandable, but there are few sentences where it could be clearer and more concise. Some sentences are repeated or awkwardly structured, making it hard to follow. Additionally, there are also spelling and grammar mistakes that need fixing.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your attention to this correction. We are working to make the writing clearer and more concise. Therefore, do not hesitate in making your scores. We are at your disposal.