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 manuscript is ready for publication
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors have sufficiently addressed my comments.
The authors have sufficiently addressed my comments.
The authors have sufficiently addressed my comments.
Authors should review the article according to the reviewers' criticisms and submit a new version
**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.
Thank you for inviting me to review the article titled “Linking patient-reported oral and general health-related quality of life”. In general, the article is well written. However, some of the concerns/corrections need to be done.
Title:
1. Kindly include the study design type.
Abstract:
2. Authors can specify the statistical test used to find the link. Since the abstract is well within the word count of peerj, this may be considered.
Introduction:
3. It’s fairly written. However, some of the references that are more than five years old can be reduced.
4. Authors can emphasize the relationship between oral health and general health rather than description of the tools.
5. Except for 12-month recall strategies, is there any other specific rationale for the study?
Methods:
6. Kindly mention more details about the inclusion and exclusion criteria
7. I suggest looking into STROBE/CROSS statements to improve the methodology presentation.
8. The authors included visually impaired adults also. How would it impact the overall results (bias/confounding, etc.)? As the visually impaired patients have poor oral OHRQoL
Results:
9. Well-presented
Discussion:
10. Again, the same suggestions. Kindly update references (OHRQoL and general QoL have changed dramatically over the period of time) and modify the discussion accordingly.
11. If authors wish to maintain the same references, kindly add the discussion about the changes/trends in the link/association.
The authors used the proper methods to evaluate the intended objectives. However, it required more explanation.
1. The validity of findings clearly benefits/adds to the existing literature
2. The provided data is robust and statistically sound
3. Discussion parts need improvement (as per the above-mentioned comments)
Though on the whole, the manuscript was well-written, introduction section may be modified to be more concise.
Consider a more engaging way to introduce the topic, perhaps highlighting the impact of poor oral health on daily life.
From line 55 to 60, the authors should first give more illustrations for the meaning of“r=0.24 and r=0.28”to facilitate the reader understanding these index.
From line 72 to 87, please briefly summarize the key findings and consider combining some examples. For instance, it could shorten as:
"...Disease-specific research also highlights the connection between oral health and overall well-being. Studies involving temporomandibular disorder (TMD) patients, head and neck cancer patients, and individuals with dentofacial deformities all demonstrate positive correlations between OHRQoL and HRQoL. "
Consider adding a sentence at the end that briefly mentions the potential impact of the study. For example:
"By investigating the OHRQoL-HRQoL relationship over a longer period, this study aims to provide valuable insights for healthcare professionals and contribute to the development of more comprehensive healthcare strategies."
Please briefly explain the rationale for using a 12-month recall period for both instruments despite the PROMIS instrument having a recommended 7-day recall.
In the discussion, please explain more on the limitations of instruments and how it might affect the results and the mixed findings on the effect of adjusting for confounding variables and the need for further investigation.
The illustration in figure1 and 2 should be more clear, such as” gen_daily””ohip_less” etc, it may be better to illustrate these in the figure rather than in figure legends.
no comment
- how accurate is the physical oral health measurement? Is it the standard procedure to have one dentist perform the test? What was the inter-rater agreement from the previous studies? You could provide one or two sentences to describe that.
- both OHRQoL and HRQoL are discrete variables. To analyze a bivariate correlation, I think the Spearman correlation test would be more suitable than the Pearson correlation test.
- It’s unclear why gender, age, and teeth count were adjusted in the SEM. Could you include some background to indicate that these factors are associated with either OHRQoL or HRQoL?
- Apart from gender, age and teeth count, are there any other confounders that you should adjust for but do not have relevant data? You could add one or two sentences in the limitation section.
no comment
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.