The reported priority ranking appears inconsistent with the article’s own supplementary voting data. Supplementary Table S2 shows total scores of 48, 31, 30, 29, 24, 19, 17, 17, 16, and then two questions tied at 14 tokens, whereas Table 2 presents a materially different order and includes one of the two 14-token questions without reporting a tie-breaking rule. In addition, the supplementary totals comprise 285 tokens, equivalent to 19 complete 15-token ballots from 12 patients, four healthcare professionals, and three researchers, although the article describes a focus group and sounding board containing 30 people and states that participants from both groups performed the prioritization. We ask the authors to clarify the ranking procedure, identify the anonymized number of voters from each group, explain missing or excluded ballots, disclose any post-voting consensus-based reordering and tie-breaking procedure, and provide an anonymized ballot-level matrix and contemporaneous records of the final prioritization. These materials are needed to determine whether the discrepancies are reporting errors correctable through a formal notice or affect the reliability of the published research agenda.
