Postoperative Radiation Referral Rates for Metastatic Bone Disease Within the Veteran’s Health Administration and at an Academic Center
Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for
Abstract & Keywords
Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?
Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?
Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?
Tools and Methods
Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?
Discussion & Conclusion
Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?
Comments: The Discussion illustrates the importance of the quality benchmark for referral to radiation, depending upon the patient population, for providing high quality and equitable care to patients. The study further highlights the limitations of the retrospective study conducted. The authors present an inclusive analysis of the rates that provides a useful starting point for the consideration of possible quality metrics. Lastly, the Conclusion underlines the nationwide variation in referral rate that will help in establishing radiation referral benchmarks for high-reliability care.
Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?
Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?
Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?
Figures & Tables
Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?
Q: Is it clear and understandable?
Comments: There are few issues found in the manuscript, which are as follows:
· In Background section under Introduction, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, “Existing literature suggests that patients with metastatic bone diseased are best served …” should be written as “Existing literature suggests that patients with metastatic bone diseases are best served…”.
· Under Discussion, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence, “The high proportion of patients referred at the VHA group and at the academic medical center is consistent with recommendations” should be rewritten as “The high proportion of patients referred to the VHA group and at the academic medical center, is consistent with recommendations”.
Further comments on the paper
Comments: The Research puts forth a retrospective cohort study highlighting postoperative radiation referral rates for metastatic bone disease within the Veteran’s Health Administration (VHA) and academic center. The observed regional variation within the VHA indicates the importance of establishing quality benchmarks. The Research provides the elaborated study design, demographics, statistical analysis, covariates, the outcome variables and comes up with the possible results.
Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?
A: Yes - Suitable to be published
If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.
Science Repository Team
This email is restricted to the intended user.
|Science Repository - Support|
Corresponding AuthorKenneth R Gundle
Department of Orthopaedics & Rehabilitation, Oregon Healtuh & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
Article TypeResearch Article
Publication historyReceived: Tue 28, Dec 2021
Accepted: Wed 12, Jan 2022
Published: Fri 28, Jan 2022
Copyright© 2021 Kenneth R Gundle. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Hosting by Science Repository.