A Retrospective Review of COVID-19 Medicines Information Queries in a Quaternary Hospital with Unique COVID-19 Border Controls
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Congratulations on writing up this informative article. Line 78- needs correction: how these were researched. Did you have any comment about how future management of MIQs in a pandemic should occur from this experience.
Author Response
Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
Line 78- needs correction: how these were researched.
Thank you, we have now corrected the error in this sentence.
Did you have any comment about how future management of MIQs in a pandemic should occur from this experience.
Thank you, we have added a paragraph to the discussion (lines 315-319) on how MIQ should be approached in a future pandemic.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In the presented form, the Article should be rejected. There is no detailed information regarding methodological aspects. Data were analyzed in mixed way; however, qualitative background is not described well. Furthermore, the article's conclusion is not supported by strong scientific evidence. The quality of the information provided was not assessed. The article also does not show trends (how the information provided has changed over time and since the stage of the pandemic).
Author Response
Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
There is no detailed information regarding methodological aspects. Data were analyzed in mixed way; however, qualitative background is not described well.
Thank you for your comments. We have added more detail to the materials and methods section regarding how the keywords were assigned and analysed and an example of how both queries and references were analysed for keywords. We have also added information to how other information was compiled.
Furthermore, the article's conclusion is not supported by strong scientific evidence.
Thank you for your comment regarding the conclusion. Medicines information pharmacists do have proven value in information retrieval and critical analysis of the literature; although this is the first article to explore this in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. We have expanded the conclusion to note the role of the MI pharmacist alongside other pharmacists and noted that the change to traditional information searches is based on a single centre experience.
The quality of the information provided was not assessed.
Thank you, we have added a sentence stating that the information provided was not assessed formally, although informal review occurred with medical and pharmacy staff. Similarly, a sentence has been added regarding informal review and addition of by pharmacists for the COVID-19 vaccination document and safety of COVID-19 treatments in pregnancy and breastfeeding.
The article also does not show trends (how the information provided has changed over time and since the stage of the pandemic).
Thank you, we did not seek in this article to assess how the information provided changed during the pandemic over time due to our unique situation where very few COVID-19 infections were seen until 2022. We have added information to the results section on the trends of our pandemic locally.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Generally speaking, the study cannot be improved more. Still there are methodological flaws. The final decision depennds on Editor's will.
