Does including the "logic equation" in here add or subtract from it? To understand it you need to read all of App Matt A but without it seems unjustified to make the statement about the two conditions.

This can be 2 different arrows bar with eh Neilsens range or the total perceivable range.

This is. significant weakness

Rename to Literature methods and preliminary search

Add breakdown of the study types.

This section can be expanded by another 100 words. This is to ensure that the discussion points are fully justified. Add further results and the numbers.

This section needs a serious re-work

There are multiple things I am trying to express: 1) How does a treatment effect play into this - But maybe we can forget about this as we want to estimate the bias and that bias is independent of the true treatment effect

2) How to calculate and express differences in proportion

3) Relate this to the main heat map graph

Discussion needs some direction, is this a mathematical methods paper or a commentary on the weakness of research methods paper?

Given the main "heat map" graph, I wonder if it possible to have a "proportion corrected" OME equation. Is there a mathematical way to "correct" for the difference in proportion that would mean that un-balance groups would no longer be based by the conversion value error epsilon?

Is there a comparison to a more obviously "wrong" data item that we could draw? Such as a pre-calculated NEWS score in a dataset but with no breakdown of the constant parts. (Although NEWS has one common accepted weighting (read as scoring) system so the translation is more explicit)

This number is just a limitation of time to extract. I could do more if it would have an impact on the quality of the results.

I have tried to compile the "range of values used across the literature" but generally the documentation is poor. For example, no-one lists their routes used and this can have a big bearing on the conversion values.

Generally these grid values are rather narrow so the variation produced is relatively narrow. I could use "the range seen in the literature" but this is sensitive of criticism to using unresisting conversion values does lead to unrealistic results.

This section needs some work I think.

I have not fully been able to link my basic sum (Equation 2.3) to this graph. There are a few steps that go into defining DeltaP_i and epsilon in how they are generated in the experiment.

To add caption and swap y axis order to match table order

There is some difficulty in estimating the group means as show in the table above. Part of this reason is there is a lot of assumptions made. I have tried to apply blanket rules such as conversion values assume IV route, etc.

I feel the difficult in re-calculating the study results perhaps weakens this section as it makes the de-novo estimates (green cross and orange whisker) look far off (such as for Hall 2025)

Needs a proper title

Needs a proper title

This is a test comment

Updated title: Use of Electronic Patient Record Systems for Rapid Response to an MHRA Public Assessment Report: Retrospective Observational Study