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 revised manuscript has been examined by one referee and myself. Concerns raised in the first round of review have been satisfactorily addressed.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** To comply with PeerJ policy, the published title must be "systematic review" not "scoping review".
Please address the remaining reviewer comments.
All my comments have been dealt with satisfactorily.
I recommend that the publication be accepted in its present form.
see first report
see first report
see first report
no comment
no comment
no comment
The revision effectively reflected the review comments provided.
However, some parameter names in table 2 are still missing, and would be ideally completed to insure readability.
For example for Assis et al 2012, please revise the dosage column into
" wavelength: 808nm, power: 30mW, fluence: 180J/cm², irradiance 3.8W/cm², total energy: 1.4J "
or the alternative parameter names author deemed to be appropriate.
Please double check row" De souza et al 2011" and "Alves et al 2012 " dosage column to label "wavelength" within in the content.
Both reviewers have somewhat minor comments. Please respond to them in an appropriate revision
no comment
no comment
no comment
Gururaj et al. review photobiomodulation as a prevention and treatment for radiation-induced fibrosis, a clinically relevant issue affecting cancer survivors' quality of life. The review is well-designed, informative, and methodologically sound. However, only two studies specifically address radiation-induced fibrosis, while most available research provides indirect implications within radiotherapy. The authors might consider adjusting the title to reflect this. Overall, I recommend acceptance with minor revisions:
• Discussion (prevention of fibrosis) from line 316:
The review describes various effects in preventing radiation-induced fibrosis. However, some also impact ionizing radiation’s effect on tumors and normal tissue, influencing radiosensitivity (e.g., angiogenesis, oxygen and ROS status). The authors should discuss potential interactions and consequences of such effects for tumor and normal tissue with fractionated radiotherapy. Since photobiomodulation is locally limited before radiotherapy for prevention, tumor volume can likely be omitted from this discussion.
• The authors should also discuss other potential preventive approaches for radiation-induced fibrosis, such as FLASH radiotherapy, which significantly reduces side effects in normal tissue, including fibrosis.
No comment
The authors are encouraged to report in a more consistent manner for the dosage column in Table 1. Specifically, all entries should be standardized to either power density (irradiance, W/cm²) or fluence (J/cm²). Furthermore, the nomenclature should be harmonized, recognizing that power density is equivalent to irradiance.
Referencing Lee et al. (2019), it is noted that the reported fluence range is 0.3-3 J/cm². However, the table lacks corresponding parameter name.
Where both exposure duration (seconds) and fluence are provided, the author could consider calculating irradiance using the formula: Irradiance (W/cm²) = Fluence (J/cm²) / Exposure (seconds).
No Comment
1.Please consider revise the section titled 'Synthesis of Results' to 'Result Table Generation.' This change aims to clarify the process and mitigate potential misinterpretations.
2.The Discussion and Conclusion sections are very well written. These sections demonstrate a robust structure characterized by clear logical argumentation and effective compartmentalization of content.
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.