Exploring Factors That Influence Injured Patients’ Outcomes following Road Traffic Crashes: A Multi-Site Feasibility Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this study, authors explore the factors that influence mortality of road traffic crashes and consequently present valuable suggestions to reduce road accident fatalities in Saudi Arabia. The methods and resulting conclusions are sound, and therefore I recommend publication of this work after a minor revision -
I recommend the authors to further explain some of the medical terms employed in this study, for instance, what is Glasgow Coma Scale, Injury Severity Score, Systolic Blood Pressure, and pre-hospital care in the context of road accidents. While these terms eventually become clear as the reader goes through the work, it could be better if the authors introduce/explain/define them earlier in the work.
Author Response
Reviewer #1
Reviewer comments: In this study, authors explore the factors that influence mortality of road traffic crashes and consequently present valuable suggestions to reduce road accident fatalities in Saudi Arabia. The methods and resulting conclusions are sound, and therefore I recommend publication of this work after a minor revision -
I recommend the authors to further explain some of the medical terms employed in this study, for instance, what is Glasgow Coma Scale, Injury Severity Score, Systolic Blood Pressure, and pre-hospital care in the context of road accidents. While these terms eventually become clear as the reader goes through the work, it could be better if the authors introduce/explain/define them earlier in the work.
Authors response: Thank you for reviewing our article. An explanation of the Glasgow Coma Scale, Injury Severity Score, Systolic Blood Pressure, and pre-hospital care were added in the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper is well-written and the standard of English is high. While it really only tells us what we might have initially expected, the results are supportive of changes to the system that will be of benefit, so the work, though not totally unique or novel, is worthy of publication with the hope that tit stimulates authorities co carry out the suggested changes to increase survival rate and care for road crash victims.
Author Response
Reviewer #2
Reviewer comments: This paper is well-written and the standard of English is high. While it really only tells us what we might have initially expected, the results are supportive of changes to the system that will be of benefit, so the work, though not totally unique or novel, is worthy of publication with the hope that tit stimulates authorities co carry out the suggested changes to increase survival rate and care for road crash victims.
Authors response: Thank you for reviewing our article.
Reviewer 3 Report
The work seeks to test the influence of several variables on road crash injuries outcomes (to be death or healed). The motivation of the article is valid, and the topic is relevant to the journal scope.
There are several small errors of English use and style, such as punctuation, definition articles, or adequate use of words, for which it is suggested to do a complete revision of the article to give it a better finish.
The introduction needs to be improved. The reviewer recommends:
- presenting a stronger theme,
- including more citations relevant to the topic in such countries (Hint works: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(01)00073-2, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187464, https://doi.org/10.1260/2046-0430.1.4.351 ),
- as well as, clarifying the novelty of the study.
Regarding section 2, the reviewer suggests the following:
- It is worthy to explain briefly the protocol used in the study in section 2.1.
- A better presentation could be achieved by aggregating subsections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.4 in one subsection with the same name of 2.1, followed by 2.3, then 2.5.
- Please, give examples of the described variables in lines 101-102.
- Did the authors apply the check of logistic regression assumptions ( multicollinearity among explanatory variables, the linear relationship between explanatory variables and the Logit of the response variable, etc.)? If they have been checked, please indicate that clearly.
The reviewer recommends the following with respect to the Results section:
- Reorganize the text to well describe the tables (each describing text below the corresponding table).
- Table 3 has the wrong title.
- Include all variables characteristics presented in Table 1 in line 158.
- The same previous comment for the other tables summaries in text.
- Please, rethink the names of variables: Mechanism of injury to be vehicle involvement in injury or similar name, Collision severity to be driver liability).
- Indicate as a footnote of the results tables, the significance level used.
Author Response
Reviewer #3
The work seeks to test the influence of several variables on road crash injuries outcomes (to be death or healed). The motivation of the article is valid, and the topic is relevant to the journal scope.
Reviewer comments: There are several small errors of English use and style, such as punctuation, definition articles, or adequate use of words, for which it is suggested to do a complete revision of the article to give it a better finish.
Authors response: Thank you for reviewing this study. The manuscript has been proof read before being re-submitted to the journal.
Reviewer comments: The introduction needs to be improved. The reviewer recommends:
- presenting a stronger theme,
- including more citations relevant to the topic in such countries (Hint works: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(01)00073-2, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187464, https://doi.org/10.1260/2046-0430.1.4.351),
- as well as, clarifying the novelty of the study.
Authors response: More citation has been added, and the introduction section was improved by clarifying the study's novelty.
Regarding section 2, the reviewer suggests the following:
- Reviewer comments: It is worthy to explain briefly the protocol used in the study in section 2.1.
- Authors response: Although the study protocol was published in BMJ Open which we have referred to in the manuscript, complete methodology details were also presented in this study in section 2. Materials and Methods.
- Reviewer comments: A better presentation could be achieved by aggregating subsections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.4 in one subsection with the same name of 2.1, followed by 2.3, then 2.5.
- Authors response: We have integrated subsections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.4 in one section (2.1 Study design).
- Reviewer comments: Please, give examples of the described variables in lines 101-102.
- Authors response: Examples have been added.
- Reviewer comments: Did the authors apply the check of logistic regression assumptions (multicollinearity among explanatory variables, the linear relationship between explanatory variables and the Logit of the response variable, etc.)? If they have been checked, please indicate that clearly.
- Authors response: We have included the following sentence “The statistical assumptions of a regression analysis were checked”.
The reviewer recommends the following with respect to the Results section:
- Reviewer comments: Reorganize the text to well describe the tables (each describing text below the corresponding table).
- Authors response: The text and tables were reorganised (the variables' text description comes before each table).
- Reviewer comments: Table 3 has the wrong title.
- Authors response: We have corrected Table 3 caption.
- Reviewer comments: Include all variables characteristics presented in Table 1 in line 158.
- Authors response: We have included more variables from Table 1 in the first paragraph of the result section.
- Reviewer comments: The same previous comment for the other tables summaries in text.
- Authors response: We have added more variables in the text – Results section.
- Reviewer comments: Please, rethink the names of variables: Mechanism of injury to be vehicle involvement in injury or similar name, Collision severity to be driver liability).
- Authors response: We have changed the term ‘Collision severity’ to ‘Driver liability’. Mechanism of injury is a well-known name in the literature to describe how and what force caused the crash.
- Reviewer comments: Indicate as a footnote of the results tables, the significance level used.
- Authors response: We have added the significance level used.
