Compulsory REVISION comments

To authors, 1. Introduction: Delete beginning half. Every reader understands that correct drug usage is important and CVD/HT are important health problem. Do not write textbook-like things. Readers are experienced doctors. 2. Abstract: Sate the country where the study was done. 3. Why did you pick up amlodipine among many drugs? 4. Residents prescribed amlodipine. If many of your hospital prescription is done by residents, then, this high rate is self-evident. High rate of prescription is “specific” to amlodipine? 5. Saudi and non-Saudi patients are not important and give us no data/meaning. 6. One does not understand the distinction between internal medicine and cardiology. This simply depends on “your” institute system. Readers have no interest in this. 7. 465 does not have meaning. How many patients with HT? Among HT patients (how many), what percentage of patients were given amlodipine? 8. If you consider that residents’ prescription may not be suitable in “your” institute, why do you NOT change this habit? Is this “specific” to amlodipine? Almost every institute has its own regimen as how to treat HT/CVD patients. To establish such guideline/protocol is ABC of each department/institute. You here only confessed that your institute did not have such guidelines/protocols.

Are there ethical issues in this manuscript? (If yes, Kindly please write down the ethical issues here in details)

no

Are there competing interest issues in this manuscript? no

If plagiarism is suspected, please provide related proofs or web links. no

Give OVERALL MARKS you want to give to this manuscript ( Highest: 10 Lowest: 0 )

Guideline: Accept As It Is: (>9-10) Minor Revision: (>8-9) Major Revision: (>7-8) Serious Major revision: (>5-7) Rejected (with repairable deficiencies and may be reconsidered): (>3-5) Strongly rejected (with irreparable deficiencies.): (>0-3) 2