---

name: lancet-rebuttal description: Use after Lancet reviews arrive (including the statistical reviewer and the editor's letter) to triage the decision, answer statistical and clinical comments, and draft a point-by-point response that quotes the reviewer, gives evidence, quotes the revised manuscript text, and keeps causal language cautious. Do not run before the main text is actually revised.

Reviewer Rebuttal (lancet-rebuttal)

When to trigger

• A decision letter arrives (reject / major or minor revision).
• You have clinical and statistical reviewer comments and need a strategy before writing.
• A revision is drafted and you need the point-by-point response letter.

Step 0: read the editor's letter first

The editor's framing outranks individual reviewers. Identify:

• The decision type and whether a new review round is implied.
• Which concerns the editor emphasises (load-bearing — address fully).
• Any deal-breaker the editor names (e.g., "the primary analysis must follow the pre-specified SAP," "registration timing must be clarified," "the causal claim must be softened").

A "we would consider a revised manuscript" is an invitation gated on the deal-breaker. Don't treat it as a flat reject, but don't under-deliver.

The statistical reviewer is its own track

The Lancet routinely uses a statistical reviewer. Treat their comments as a distinct, high-priority track:

• Answer with the pre-specified analysis and SAP references; show CIs and absolute effects.
• If asked to add an analysis, add it and label pre-specified vs post-hoc honestly.
• Address ITT/per-protocol, missing-data handling, multiplicity, and subgroup interaction concerns with actual re-analysis, not prose.

Triage every comment into 4 buckets

Bucket	Action
Do (fair, feasible)	Make the change; show it; quote the new text/table/figure.
Do-partial	Do what is feasible; explain the boundary with evidence.
Defend (incorrect/out of scope)	Push back respectfully, with data/citations — not assertion.
Defer (future work)	Acknowledge; add a sentence to the text; don't over-promise.

Most rejections-on-revision come from silently skipping a load-bearing comment or defending where a re-analysis was actually needed.

Response-letter format

For each comment:

Reviewer N (or Statistical Reviewer), Comment k: <verbatim quote of the reviewer>

Response: <what we did / our reasoning>. <Evidence: new table/figure, re-analysis,
effect with 95% CI.>
Changes: "<quoted new manuscript text>" (p. X, lines Y–Z; new table/figure/appendix).

• Open with a short thank-you and a 3–4 line summary of the major changes across the revision.
• Quote each comment verbatim; never paraphrase in a way that softens the reviewer's point.
• Quote the new manuscript text so the editor can verify without hunting.
• Use a consistent visual convention (reviewer text plain; response indented; manuscript quotes in italics/colour).

Tone and causal-language rules (Lancet-specific)

• Respectful and non-defensive; if a reviewer misread the paper, the writing was unclear — fix the writing and explain.
• Keep causal language cautious: if a reviewer says the conclusion outruns the design (e.g., causal claim from observational data, or a superiority claim from a non-inferiority trial), this is the most dangerous comment — either add evidence or narrow the claim in the title, abstract Interpretation, and Discussion, and say you did.
• Concede real limitations explicitly; an honest limitations paragraph builds credibility.

Update the Research in context panel if the evidence base changed

If new studies appeared during review, re-run or update the systematic search and revise "Evidence before this study" and "Implications of all the available evidence" accordingly — and note this in the response (see lancet-research-in-context).

The Lancet-specific reviewer comments and how to land them

The comments that decide a Lancet revision cluster around the venue's identity: registration integrity, the statistical reviewer's re-analysis requests, claim calibration, and the global-health/equity framing. The fix for each is concrete, never rhetorical — the editor verifies it against quoted new text.

Reviewer comment	The venue-specific fix
"Trial not prospectively registered."	Disclose exact registration/enrolment dates; if retrospective, flag it and explain — do not bury it
"Primary outcome switched."	Reconcile to the registered outcome, or document the dated change; label post-hoc analyses
"Causal claim outruns the design."	Narrow the title, abstract Interpretation, and Discussion; say you narrowed it
"Global-health relevance / equity not addressed."	Add the LMIC/PROGRESS-Plus framing in Interpretation; coordinate with lancet-fit
"Statistical reviewer: add ITT/sensitivity analysis."	Run the re-analysis; report effect + 95% CI; show it as a new table, not prose
"Reporting checklist incomplete."	Complete and page/line-map the EQUATOR checklist; resubmit as a supplement

Worked micro-example (illustrative — not a real exchange)

A statistical-reviewer comment on a hypothetical superiority RCT, answered the Lancet way.

Statistical Reviewer, Comment 3: "The primary analysis is reported as per-protocol.
For a superiority trial, the intention-to-treat population should lead."

Response: We agree. We have made the pre-specified ITT analysis primary, with
per-protocol as a labelled sensitivity analysis. The conclusion is unchanged.
Evidence (illustrative): ITT response 60.0% vs 50.2%, absolute risk difference
9.8 pp (95% CI 5.4-14.2; p=0.0003); per-protocol 62.1% vs 50.0% (RD 12.1 pp,
95% CI 7.3-16.9) -> consistent.
Changes: "The primary analysis was by intention to treat..." (p. 8, lines 12-19;
new Table 2 row; appendix table S4 for per-protocol).

The request is answered with an actual re-analysis carrying effects and 95% CIs, the ITT/per-protocol order is corrected, and the new manuscript text is quoted so the editor can verify without hunting — the pattern that converts a statistical-reviewer comment into an accept.

Output format

【Decision type】 reject / major / minor
【Editor's load-bearing concerns】 [...]
【Deal-breaker】 ... → plan to resolve
【Statistical-reviewer track】 [...] → re-analyses planned
【Comment triage】 Do [...] / Do-partial [...] / Defend [...] / Defer [...]
【Claim integrity】 any narrowing of causal/practice claims needed? (re-check lancet-fit)
【Panel update】 systematic search re-run? Evidence-before / Implications revised? yes/no
【Response letter】 drafted point-by-point with quoted changes

Anti-patterns

• Do not silently skip a comment the editor emphasised.
• Do not answer a statistical-reviewer request for re-analysis with prose alone.
• Do not defend an over-reaching causal claim — narrow it.
• Do not draft the response before the manuscript is actually revised.