Reviewer’s report
Title: 
One-Stop Clinic for Patients with Suspected Ovarian Cancer Pathway
from a Retrospective Outcome Study
Version: 
1 
Date: 
07 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
This is a good manuscript answering a timely question - the value of a one stop
clinic in expediting diagnosis of ovarian cancer. 
I think the manuscript needs significant revision before this can be accepted -
these revisions will make the paper very worthy of publication and very useful
to readers and policy makers. 
Main message 
The authors need to focus the manuscript on the value of one stop clinic in
delivery of service - thus it would be helpful to expand on outcomes of patients
referred who are then discharged from clinic in a single visit - this needs to be
the key message of the manuscript that One stop clinics are an effective way of
diagnosis. 
The authors make a useful point about the value of CA125 in referrals - however
this needs to be presented by menopausal status ( Table 3 - needs to show
outcomes by menopausal status). At 7% conversion rate for cancer, CA125 in
this dataset serves remarkably well as a cancer test at primary care. However the
authors are correct in that for premenopausal women increasing CA125 cut off
may be of value - please see Funston et al PLOS Medicine 2020. 
Revisions 
1) Line 35 - patients were referred from primary care to secondary care ( the
clinic may have been sited in a cancer centre but in this instance cancer unit and
centre are colocated in the same hospital. As the patient was not seen by a gynae
oncologist, this is still secondary care referral)
2) Tweetable abstract - focus on CA125 level in premenopausal women 
3) Intro - focus on what is known about one stop model of delivery - cite from
other cancers where evidence shows this increases throughput and patient
satisfaction. Focus that this is clinician delivered ultrasound so added value of
clinical interpretation and high quality ultrasound 
4) Methods - clearly state how many were asymptomatic - how many were
through GP 2 week wait access and how many were not. 
5) results need to clearly present clinical outcomes but also efficacy indicators -
how many patients were discharged after one visit to hospital. 
5) 
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing
interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I am Chief Investigator of the study ROCkeTS mentioned in final paragraph in
discussion of manuscript
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes