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.
May be accepted for publication as authors addressed all the comments and revised the manuscript.
Thank you for revising the manuscript. However, it need further to include strengths of the review and improve the English language. Some sentences are very short and ambiguous. You need to address these issues before publication.
**Language Note:** The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
Dear authors,
Thank you for the responses and I am satisfied with the reply.
Now the article is good enough to publish in its current state.
Regards
No comment
No comment
Dear authors,
Please add some points related to the strengths of the review.
Regards.
Highlight the role of YouTube, its merits, and demerits in clinical sciences.
The methodology section should be updated in detail along with the study design and statistical test and provide proper references.
Clearly describe the significance of the study for future research and applications.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** PeerJ staff have identified that the English language needs to be improved. When you prepare your next revision, please either (i) have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or (ii) contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. PeerJ can provide language editing services - you can contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). – PeerJ Staff
1. Mention the prevalence rate and more details of IBP.
2. Mention in detail the role of you tube, its merits and demerits with references.
3. Mention in detail the need for this review with recent references.
4. Mention the clinical significance of this review to clinicians, researchers, and patients.
5. Include the study design and study setting.
6. Include the character of the videos. (The inclusion criteria are not clear)
7. Mention the MESH keywords for searching the videos.
8. Mention the data extraction procedure in detail.
9. Include the outcome variable measured for the review with its reliability and validity.
10. Mention the statistical analysis part.
11. Mention the statistical software used for the analysis.
12. Mention the kappa score of the reviewers who extracted the data.
13. Results are not presented in a clear manner.
14. Mention the acronym of abbreviations when it is used for the first time.
15. The conclusion should be more concise and clear based on the study reports.
16. Mention the future recommendations of the review.
Abstract:
1. Define inflammatory back pain in the background of the study.
2. Include the study design and study setting.
3. Include the character of the videoos.
4. Mention the statistical tests used for the analysis and their criteria.
5. The conclusion should be more concise and clear based on the study reports.
6. Avoid abbreviations in the conclusion.
The study covers the topic of IBP and as a Reviewer I understand the importance of this issue for both patients and medical field.
References are form recent studies which is good.
The study has a well defined and build structure.
Results are reasonable and comparable with other YT topic covering similar topics.
The topic of inflammatory back pain is indeed a part of the huge back pain topic, in my opinion the topic is well defined, group size is decent and the manuscript consists of a ethical approval which is rarely seen in such papers.
Methods are comparable with other aritcles focusing on the topic of Youtube and that also is an advantage.
The study shows that YT is not reliable in another medical topic. Statistical analysis is also decent, simple, but shows the key problem presented.
In summary the manuscript shows a study on another YT topic performed in a well known and used fashion by ohter Authors using DISCERN JAMA and GQS scoring systems. The search is done recently, ethical approval was aqcuired, statistiscs is sufficent to cover the topic. The discussion is well thought. Consusions show which videos should be chosen by the viewer to acquire the most reliable knowledge.
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.