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.
no comment
no comment
no comment
Please complete this :- To follow previous comment #2 in this section, the authors need to clarify the procedure of Bootstrap analysis which aims to correct for multiple corrections in the correlation analysis.
no comment
no comment
To follow previous comment #2 in this section, the authors need to clarify the procedure of Bootstrap analysis which aims to correct for multiple corrections in the correlation analysis.
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Corrections made are acceptable. Overall article is satisfactory.
Major revisions are required including statistical section please make sure all these are done when you resubmit.
**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.
The authors need to provide sufficient statistical parameters other than the p-value, such as the t-value and degree of freedom. (Line 126,134,140,142)
I am concerned about the correlation analysis. It is unclear if the correlation with the thicknesses at a specific eye location was performed for all the locations independently (Bootstrap search approach ) or was performed only for nasal-inner mRNFL and superior-outer INL (hypothesis-driven approach). In the former case, the authors need to consider multiple comparisons for the statistics since the false positives would be high. In the latter case, the authors need to justify deriving these two hypotheses.
1. The authors so often make claims without showing statistical results. For example, (Line 136) it is claimed no significant difference in retinal layers between headache-side eyes, non-headache-side eyes, and controls was found. The authors should provide statistics for those claims.
2. The correlation analysis showed moderate negative correlations with the INL thickness at the superior-outer sector of the headache-side eye (Line 142), which suggest thinner INL was associated with more severe migraine. However, they also showed the superior-outer sector INL of migraine patients, was significantly thicker than controls. The authors need to explain the discrepancy.
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Minor Correction. Please refer to the attachment file.
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.