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.
Thank you the manuscript has been accepted.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Bob Patton, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors improved their manuscripts and responded to my comments satisfactorily.
The authors improved their manuscripts and responded to my comments satisfactorily.
The authors improved their manuscripts and responded to my comments satisfactorily.
Please revise the manuscript with clarity the comments of the authors.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff 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.
Overall, the message of this review is clear. However, there are some concerns that the authors need to address.
1) Introduction:
(a) Background information is inadequate and not supported with current literature. E.g., lines 65-68.
b) The authors tend to use a monoreferential style in a review paper, which should be avoided. E.g., lines 82-87
(c) The authors need to specify the TMS measures mentioned in lines 77-79
d) It is still not clear what the problem is with the existing diagnosis and why MS patients need the alternative diagnosis - see line 82
2) Methodology
a) Inadequate description of search strategy. Authors need to describe who performed this search
b) In data extraction, authors need to describe who and how transcription of 2x2 contigency findings was performed and what happened to the selected study if sensitivity and specificity results were not available
(c) The description of the critical appraisal is not sufficient. The authors must indicate who performed this assessment. The explanation of biomarker validity testing is not sufficient.
3) Results
(a) Lack of clarity in the write up. Authors did not tell the reader which table/data to refer to (see line 177 - 202)
b) Line 204: The authors state the imaging results in the title. However, this paragraph does not provide information on EEG, fMRI, and other neuroimaging modalities.
c) Lines 204-216: The authors did not tell the reader which table/data to refer to, i.e., there is a lack of clarity. In fact, no correlation values are given in the table. What association the authors are trying to imply here is still unclear.
4) Discussion
a) Mixing the study designs of the selected articles could also be a limitation. The authors might consider including this as a limitation?
5) Figure 3: The authors did not clearly explain how they arrived at this forest diagram. This should also be explained in the method
as stated above
as stated above
as stated above
This article was written clearly.The main issue was clearly highlighted and well explained with strong arguments based on previous research.
References were balance and up to date.
Information in this article was profesionally structured, and raw data were shared.
Rigorous investigation was performed and achieved a high technical and ethical standard.
Method was sufficiently described.
Findings were arranged in a systematic way to convey the information. Conclusion was also well stated, linked to original research question.
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.