Reply to In response to “Factors associated with the development of gastrointestinal adverse events in dogs with multicentric lymphoma treated with <scp>CHOP</scp> or <scp>CEOP</scp> ‐based protocols: a multi‐institutional, retrospective study”

Thank you for carefully analysing the data presented in our paper and for raising an important point regarding the interpretation of the odds ratio. As you stated in your letter, the odds ratio of 0.53 reported in the manuscript actually reflects the inverse comparison (epirubicin vs. doxorubicin), making our interpretation incorrect. Unfortunately, this error resulted from several rounds of revision (the manuscript has been under review for 8 months) during which some cases were excluded – ultimately reducing the dataset to 178 cases – along with changes in statistical methodology and editorial suggestions to revise our initial interpretation (which originally aligned with yours: doxorubicin was associated with a higher risk of gastrointestinal side effects). The change in the interpretation of the results was also supported by our statistician at the time. The statistician who conducted the analysis and provided the interpretation has now reviewed the logistic regression model used in the study. Upon re-examination, he realised that the outcome variable had been coded as a factor with levels “yes” and “no”, and that R had automatically set “no” as the reference level. This resulted in an inversion of the odds ratio interpretation, which, unfortunately, went unnoticed during the review process. He has acknowledged that he should have more carefully checked the coding of the outcome variable and the reference level set by the general linear model function. This oversight on our part unfortunately led to a misinterpretation. We regret that we are now faced with these circumstances, especially given the length and thoroughness of the peer review process. As you know, this requires an incredible amount of work from all involved – Authors, Editors and Reviewers. However, we are grateful that the mistake was identified promptly – albeit following publication. As researchers and veterinary oncologists, we strive to publish accurate data that can then be translated into clinical practice. We therefore appreciate the opportunity to clarify these points and will liaise with the Journal to determine the most appropriate course of action. All authors contributed to drafting the response letter and approved the final version of the manuscript. None of the authors of this article has a financial or personal relationship with other people or organisations that could inappropriately influence or bias the content of the paper. Research data are not shared.