Randomized Controlled Trial of Home Telemonitoring of Blood Pressure with an Adapted Tensiometer with SMS Capability
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer, here we send you the answers to the comments that you proposed, and we attach the version in “track changes.”
Point 1: It seems that the main objective is office blood pressure at 4 weeks. It should be clarified.
Response 1: A sentence explaining the main objective has been added to the end of the introduction section.
Point 2: The calculated number of patients to be randomized in order to achieve statistical power was 40, but 38 patients were currently randomized. Systolic blood pressure differences did not achieve statistical power. Could be related to loss of statistical power? Comments are needed.
Response 2: In this study, the sample size was limited, and the calculated power was only 40.56%. This low power may limit the ability of our results to detect a true difference between the means, if one exists. Low power increases the likelihood of failing to reject the null hypothesis, even when a difference is present. This means that there is a higher risk of Type II error, i.e., accepting the null hypothesis when it is false. The low power in our study should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results and in future studies, it would be advisable to increase the sample size to increase the power and reduce the risk of Type II error.
Point 3: Technical and process aspects of home blood pressure monitoring should be included in methods section.
Response 3: The description of the technical and process aspects of home blood pressure monitoring has been added to the methodology
Point 4: Did the treatments change? A table with this data should be very useful.
Response 4: The prescription of treatments did not change
Point 5: Treatment adherence was evaluated? In case the answer is no, some limitations comments should be added.
Response 5: Added this limitation in the discussion section
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Abstract: The objective of the research and the relevance of the research were missing.
Introduction. First lines with important but outdated statements, just see the year of the first 5 citations.
Results: In the tables I have 2 criticisms to make: some applications of the chi-square test are inappropriate due to the low frequency in certain cells of the table, therefore it should be re-evaluated, according to the authors to affirm data normality without presenting the normality test used and its significance, remembering that for the t test, it is not only the normality test that is valid, the homogeneity of variances is also an assumption and has not been tested, so I ask: why not opt ​​for the mann-whitney test?
Conclusion: I found the findings very vague and I did not observe the limitations of the research and suggestions for future work in the text.
References: I found most of them outdated.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, here we send you the answers to the comments that you proposed and we attach the version in “track changes”
Point 1: Abstract: The objective of the research and the relevance of the research were missing.
Response 1: Added the main objective in the abstract
Point 2: Introduction. First lines with important but outdated statements, just see the year of the first 5 citations.
Response 2: The data mentioned were changed based on more recent references
Point 3: Results: In the tables I have 2 criticisms to make: some applications of the chi-square test are inappropriate due to the low frequency in certain cells of the table, therefore it should be re-evaluated, according to the authors to affirm data normality without presenting the normality test used and its significance, remembering that for the t test, it is not only the normality test that is valid, the homogeneity of variances is also an assumption and has not been tested, so I ask: why not opt ​​for the mann-whitney test?
Response 3: In our study, we used the Levene's Test to assess the assumption of homogeneity of variances between our two groups. The results of the Levene's Test indicated that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was not violated, suggesting that the t-test is appropriate for comparing the means of our two groups. Even so, we have added a column to table 2 of the mann-whitney test where very similar results are observed.
Point 4: Conclusion: I found the findings very vague and I did not observe the limitations of the research and suggestions for future work in the text.
Response 4: Limitations and future work have been added to the manuscript
Point 5: References: I found most of them outdated.
Response 5: All references older than 5 years have been updated
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
the authors elaborated on the suggested modifications. Congratulations.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for accepting the manuscript, I am attaching the latest version with change control where figure 1 is redone to avoid copyright issues.
Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
