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 for submission of your rebuttal and the revised manuscript.
* I confirm that the authors have addressed all of the reviewers' comments.
* I have assessed the revision myself, and the current version is acceptable
* The manuscript is ready for publication pending publication tasks
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Mike Climstein, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Please address the comments from the reviewer and in particular the one about why the test retest was done in a week when conventionally it is done in two weeks' time. Thanks.
Please see an attached file.
No comments.
No comments.
In view of the several issues raised by the first and second reviewers. In particular, a reviewer noted that "the authors stated that OA is more prevalent in females than males in the Middle East. However, the study recruited only a male sample. The choice not to include a female sample in the current study must be justified". Please justify the study design and address the points raised by the reviewers.
Please see an attached file.
Please see an attached file.
Please see an attached file.
The study rationale needs more elaboration.
The methodology section needs more details. You need to follow the same sequence of objectives throughout the manuscript
Demographic data presentation is required.
First, I would like to thank the authors for this interesting and useful work.
1-The English language is professional and clear
2- The introduction is brief and well-introduced, but certain references must be updated.
3- High quality figures
4- The raw data is reviewed. The file is checked.
1- The study fills the existing gap in knowledge as the community needs the Arabic version of the questionnaire.
2- The study is within the scope of the journal.
3- In line 84, the meaning of the abbreviation (PROM) should be explained in the study design section. It is also not explained in the list of abbreviations.
1-The collected data was analyzed well,
2- The discussion section is well provided
3-The conclusion is well-stated and linked with the study findings.
4-The authors should thank all participants in the study not only the deanship of scientific research
Many thanks for allowing me to review this study.
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.