Comment 7 Results It is a great pity, in my mind, that the The Core Group felt this to be a core group elected to have two key outcome of this process, the statements for the CFSPID infants…this distinction between these two seems to generate confusion, cohorts was felt to be important complicate the recommendations and and has resulted in good when there is no evidence for any of it, agreement on the two sets of makes less sense. statements. None of the 85 contributors to the Delphi process commented negatively on the decision to have two sets of statements. We have added a sentence in the discussion to clarify this. Comment 8 No response rate is given (85 responses Denominator and response rate to round 1, but how many sent out? added Same problem for round 2, I assume 85 sent out???)Report a % response rate. Comment 9 It might be best to look at the figure Yes sorry, this was a mistake, we now: Figure 1. The word equivocal have removed should be removed and the correct term, CFSPID used (don't introduce another word!). Comment 10 Generally good flow diagram. Comment 11 I can't really determine the difference We agree this is quite confusing between rewritten and modified. This and hopefully will be clearer in could be better explained, this is a type the revised paper. We have of methodological issue. It would be OK clarified in the methods. to explain it more clearly in the text Modified is when the statement section round 2. is changed to improve clarity (some statements that achieved agreement were modified to improve readability). Rewritten is a fundamental change in the content, reflecting comments. We will clarify this throughout the paper and make the corrections highlighted. Comment 12 Round 2…the numbers don't add up, Thank you for highlighting this Group A: in round 1 there were 15 mistake, which we have statements, but after round two 15 corrected (consensus) + 1 (no consensus)=16! Group B there were 17 statements in round 1, but after round 2, 16 (consensus) +???? Comment 13 Back to the Round 1: where does >60% approach This is a fair comment. We have consensus come from (this was not removed this subjective discussed a priori….may be best to just assessment of the level of say seven statements had 60-79% agreement.
Comment 7 Results It is a great pity, in my mind, that the core group elected to have two statements for the CFSPID infants…this seems to generate confusion, complicate the recommendations and when there is no evidence for any of it, makes less sense. The Core Group felt this to be a key outcome of this process, the distinction between these two cohorts was felt to be important and has resulted in good agreement on the two sets of statements. None of the 85 contributors to the Delphi process commented negatively on the decision to have two sets of statements. We have added a sentence in the discussion to clarify this. Comment 8 No response rate is given (85 responses to round 1, but how many sent out? Same problem for round 2, I assume 85 sent out???)Report a % response rate. Denominator and response rate added Comment 9 It might be best to look at the figure now: Figure 1. The word equivocal should be removed and the correct term, CFSPID used (don't introduce another word!). Yes sorry, this was a mistake, we have removed Comment 10 Generally good flow diagram. Comment 11 I can't really determine the difference between rewritten and modified. This could be better explained, this is a type of methodological issue. It would be OK to explain it more clearly in the text section round 2. We agree this is quite confusing and hopefully will be clearer in the revised paper. We have clarified in the methods. Modified is when the statement is changed to improve clarity (some statements that achieved agreement were modified to improve readability). Rewritten is a fundamental change in the content, reflecting comments. We will clarify this throughout the paper and make the corrections highlighted. Comment 12 Round 2…the numbers don't add up, Group A: in round 1 there were 15 statements, but after round two 15 (consensus) + 1 (no consensus)=16! Group B there were 17 statements in round 1, but after round 2, 16 (consensus) +???? Thank you for highlighting this mistake, which we have corrected Comment 13 Back to the Round 1: where does >60% approach consensus come from (this was not discussed a priori….may be best to just say seven statements had 60-79% This is a fair comment. We have removed this subjective assessment of the level of agreement.
Munck%20et%20al%20CFSID%20paper%20resubmission%20document.docx