Write a comment

In this manuscript, Silva et al provide an overview of the procedures implemented in clinical practice to ensure safety measures for patients and personnel in the case of antineoplastic extravasation. An integrative/scoping review was performed, and 25 articles were reviewed.

The introduction is clear and based on recent references, although can include a reference or resume about the internation guidelines on the topic.

My main concern is the very extensive discussion, mixed with results.

MAJOR

Abstract

• The results section do not give much information. I would like to know more specificaly, at least some of main resutls. Otherwise, the difference from abstract conclusion is not significative.

  Introduction

• The last two paragraph are not necessary or can be much reduced; the relevance should be undertood/self-evident from previous info. These two paragraph could be replaced by the aim (solely)

• I miss a sinthesis or reference to the internacional guidelines of good practice regarding the extravasation of cytostatic drugs. In the conclusion some of these are presented and I suppose as well in the extesnive discussion - hard to read completely.

  Methods

• Do not see the need to say what is a “integrative review”, which, if I may say, is very much located associated to Brasil… Second paragraph not needed absolutely. The same for the 4th paragraph of methods. The 5th paragrph should convey the research question in fact instead of listing its components. What realy matters is ““Quais são as medidas de segurança do paciente e protocolos clínicos adotados pelos enfermeiros no extravasamento de antineoplásicos?” and the Quadro 1 is useful. The steps are overdescribed.

• Many authors prefer to describe the number of articles screened i nth resutls section instead of the methods. I do also prefer that approuch. A flowshart is also preferable (like the ones sugested from PRISMA).

• The full search string can/should be presented in appendix.

  Results and discussion

• Before describing the diferent resutls subsection, an overview should be given. PErsonally - and in most journals - the resutls are appart of discussion.

• The discussion is extensive while the description of the resutls falls short. This is my main concern regarding this manuscript.

• It can be clearer i nthe tables (not only inderictly from title, aims), the design of the articles sleected

MINOR

• In the abstract it is mentioned “terms according to DeCS”; I suspect this is not widely know internacionally, being much more the MESH. I do not think this info is needed here

• In the introduction, the incidence numbers can be given in a more undertandable way; "beyonf saing “encontrou uma taxa de incidência de 0,097%, durante oano de 2016, e 0,28% entre os meses de janeiro e agosto de 2017” the authors can say how many people in 100 (or 1000) per month.

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.