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 authors have responded to comments raised by first round review and the article is Accepted.
The manuscript has been improved according to previous suggestions. No further corrections required.
The manuscript has been improved according to previous suggestions. No further corrections required.
The manuscript has been improved according to previous suggestions. No further corrections required.
The manuscript has been improved according to previous suggestions. No further corrections required.
Please consider all comments raised buy reviewers and pay extra attention to not overstating conclusions where there is no real data to support this. Also, discussion should relate to content of the paper (results) and not discuss off topic issues.
The manuscript is generally well-written, with clear and concise language. The structure is logical, beginning with an introduction that provides a good overview of the topic, followed by the study design, results, discussion, and conclusion. However, there are areas where the manuscript could benefit from improvement:
- Several risk factors and conditions associated with erectile dysfunction (ED) and hypertension are mentioned, but it could benefit from a tighter connection between these elements. To this regard also see: 10.1111/and.14504 and 10.3390/metabo13050617
- References could be revised considering that some are quite outdated.
- The sample size of 223 participants is relatively small and may not provide sufficient power to detect smaller effects or generalize the findings to a broader population. Additionally, the exclusion of individuals with chronic conditions other than hypertension could limit the study's applicability, given that comorbidities are common in this patient population.This should be reported extensively in the discussion.
While the manuscript discusses the relationship between ED and various personal characteristics, it does not adequately address potential confounding factors. For example, the role of psychological factors, which are known to influence ED, is not considered.
- The importance of a multidisciplinary approach to managing ED in hypertensive patients, is emphasized, which is commendable. However, it would be helpful to provide specific examples of how such an approach could be implemented in clinical practice.
Your introduction needs to be more detailed. I would suggest that you improve the description of lines 35-41 to describe ED and its association with diseases such as blood vessels or hypertension to provide more justification for your research
The research question does not indicate how the research fills the identified knowledge gaps
The survey results are valid and the data processing is reasonable
English is clear and understandable. However, the literature and background support for the research questions should be improved.
The authors used cross-sectional descriptive study. As the author mentioned, the existence of high prevalence of ED is well established among elderly and hypertensive patients. With this evidence, giving more attention to study the possible mechanisms and factors with rigorous and reasonable research design, and appropriate data analysis is warranted.
The author’s conclusion is exaggerated. None of the recommendations are based on their findings.
Limitation: the author mentioned only one limitation which is sample size. They didn’t not explain how small the sample is as well as give guidance what to do next to minimize this limitation. The nature of the study design is one major limitation for example.
What is your criteria for duration of smoking?
No comment
No comment
No comment
Please explore more for method of hypertension status and smoking condition (type or amount of cigarettes) (result section) and pathomechanism to erectile dysfunction (discussion section), so your conclusion will be more detailed.
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.