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.
Congratulations again, and thank you for your submission.
Yours,
Yoshi
Prof. Yoshinori Marunaka, M.D., Ph.D.
the authors have sufficiently addressed my concerns. I have no further comments.
the authors have sufficiently addressed my concerns. I have no further comments.
the authors have sufficiently addressed my concerns. I have no further comments.
no comment
no comment
The study makes an important contribution to the field, and it will stimulate further research in this area
Dear Dr. Cai,
Please revise your manuscript and submit it with your written responses to each of the reviewers' comments.
Yours,
Yoshi
Prof. Yoshinori Marunaka, M.D., Ph.D.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should *only* be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
no comment
- In line 219 please if a 2-sided or a 1-sided p-value was used
- in table 1 and table 2 could you conduct statistical tests to compare the demographics and ISC-Q scores between sample 1 and sample 2 to demonstrate that these two groups of samples are similar in characters?
- in section 3.1 could you provide more details on how the 162 and 243 participants were selected for EFA and CFA respectively? Were they assigned to EFA and CFA randomly from the total study participants? What were the eligible criteria for EFA and CFA?
- in line 291, please indicate what correlation test was used for the calculation of r and its corresponding p-value.
- Given the relatively small study sample size, could you discuss how representative your study results are of the entire NLUTD patients in China.
- Since patients were recruited from different centers or areas (rural/urban). How do you adjust for the potential clustering effect? Would the study results be different if you adjust for the hospital centers in your model?
The concept of the study is clear
The design and the methodology were scientifically sound
The language was fair
The results were in line with the aims and objectives
The background to the study was adequately captured
The figure 1-4 and table 1-6 were adequately captured
Aims and objectives were in tandem with the design of the study
The methodology was sound and can easily reproducible
The statistical analysis was good
The findings are scientifically sound
The conclusion was drawn from the research
The manuscript was not blinded
Some references are older than 10 years
No keyword was provided in the main manuscript
Line 301-310 should be merged with the background
The article is well structured, and the study design is adequate for the cross-cultural adaptation of the health instrument for this population.
The study procedures are adequate; however, the Patient Reported Outcomes Measure is not mentioned in this population, nor is the importance of this specific instrument and its use.
Also, the guidelines for the reference study should be used for the psychometric properties analysis of this instrument: Consensus-Based Standards for the Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). See these references: (Gagnier et al., 2021; Mokkink et al., 2010; Terwee et al., 2018).
• Gagnier, J. J., Lai, J., Mokkink, L. B., & Terwee, C. B. (2021). COSMIN reporting guideline for studies on measurement properties of patient reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 30(8), 2197–2218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02822-4
• Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 539–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8
• Terwee, C. B., Prinsen, C. A. C., Chiarotto, A., Westerman, M. J., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., de Vet, H. C. W., & Mokkink, L. B. (2018). COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Quality of Life Research : An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 27(5), 1159–1170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1829-
Some methodology should sustain the translation procedure of the scale, described in Figures 1 and 2. See the reference (Beaton et al., 2000).
• Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
Also, there’s no mention of how the data was obtained, whether in paper or electronic format or how the missing data was handled.
The findings of the study are novel for this population since the adaptation of this instrument can improve the delivered care to this population, since the impact of NLUTD in patients QoL
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.