All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The authors have addressed all of the reviewers' comments. The manuscript may be accepted as per the Journal Policy.
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented global health crisis, leading to numerous medical advancements and research initiatives to address the needs of affected individuals. One such area of research has been the exploration of the efficacy of bamlanivimab and etesevimab in preventing subsequent hospitalization and mortality in outpatients with COVID-19. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis provide valuable insights into the topic.
Please address the remaining reviewer comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
The authors have added a certificate of professional services to improve the language. However, there is still scope for improvement of the language
no comment
All data to validate their conclusion are provided
The authors have certainly improved the English. There is still room for improvement.
Since the authors have included more trial as part of an updated search table 1, figure 1 and 2 should be updated. The ROB and quality assessments need to be done for the newly included studies as well. This may not change the results or interpretation, however systematic reviews and meta-analyses need to maintain certain standards.
The findings are certainly valid
I would recommend rewriting the results with the updated search rather than including the results of the updated search as a supplement. The current presentation makes the immense effort put in by the authors as haphazard.
Thank you for submitting your manuscript. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet Journal’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
No comment. Relevant results and it did answered the research question. Writing was good however it could be improved.
No comment, used methodology is strong and valid.
Findings are relevant, interesting to share.
This paper was well presented and goodly wrote, the methodology was strong and correct with no red flags nor big errors, the conclusion responded the research question, results are interesting and can be used for further studies.
1. Need to improve the language of the manuscript. Sufficient background for the study has been given. Results are relevant to their intended objectives
2. Research question and PICO format should be added, for better understanding of the characteristics of the studies included.
3. Lines 87-92 does not match well with the subsequent lines. May need to rearrange them at appropriate place.
4. Line 174- “Most studies were conducted in the US (one),”- Check the content
5. Under study selection, its mentioned “randomized-controlled studies or cohort studies”. Yet, Koehler et al and Kumar et al are Cross sectional and case control studies, respectively. Kindly clarify on this contradiction
6. Authors may add the ethical statement (or its non-applicability) of the research
7. The search date is more than 16 months old. Authors need to do an updated search for latest date, and add new studies if any. This is of importance considering fact that emerging variants affects the efficacy of the ab.
Basic reporting
1. The English is overall acceptable. Some tense correction is needed – I have annotated some of these in the accompanying pdf. The authors are requested to go through the entire manuscript with a fluent speaker.
2. Intro and background are relevant and well referenced
a. Case fatality rate needs referencing (line 66)
b. What is the meaning of co-existing policy? (Line 88)
3. Figures are relevant, high quality, well labelled and described
a. Yes
4. Raw data supplied
a. Yes
Experimental Design
1. Does the manuscript match the scope of the journal?
a. Yes
2. Research Question well defined?
a. Yes, although using a PICOT format will add clarity.
3. Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical and ethical standard?
a. These have been followed
4. Methods:
a. There is a clear disparity in the list of databases included in this meta-analysis: lines 123, 41 and 42 – This is quite concerning
b. Two third authors breaking a tie seems unusual
c. Instead of using terms as “small study bias”, “publication bias” might be a better term (Line 160)
5. Results section
a. What is being mean by “(one)” – line 174 needs rephrasing
b. Authors should probably analyze and provide a summary treatment effect after removing trials with publication bias (Lines 194- 98)
c. I would not really call anaphylaxis as a tolerable side effect. If data is available in the original manuscript, please provide the frequency of anaphylaxis observed.
Validity of the findings
1. Benefit to literature clearly stated
a. Yes
2. All underlying data provided?
a. Yes
3. Robust data?
a. Yes
4. Statistically sound?
a. Yes. Although an analysis after removing studies contributing to publication bias would be quite useful.
5. Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question and limited to supporting results?
a. The limitations and conclusions are well stated
b. A note on the moderate heterogeneity in the primary outcome is needed under the “Conclusion” section.
English needs minor improvement, else a well written manuscript. Please not an annotated pdf has also been provided
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.