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 addressing the reviewer comments and providing clear indication of the improvements made to the manuscript. Your work is now suitable for publication.
Ok,
Ok
Ok
Ok
**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.
1.The primary and secondary outcomes of the study are not clearly defined, which makes the logic of the article unclear. I would like to know whether the term“postoperative recovery quality” in the title refers to the recovery quality score (QoR) or the results of multiple dimensions?
2.Once the primary outcomes are clearly defined, their description in the abstract and results section should be prioritized and distinguished from secondary outcomes.
1.Regarding the results on postoperative Quality of Recovery (QoR), the study only reported data within 48 hours after surgery. It is unclear whether any studies have analyzed the results at 72 hours postoperatively.
2.The authors only conducted subgroup analyses and sensitivity analysis for the results of “PACU stay time”. However, it would be more meaningful to perform subgroup analyses on the primary outcomes.
Similar articles have already been published, so the innovation is average. Fortunately, the article includes more literature, further supporting this evidence.
No comment
This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of perioperative intravenous esketamine on the quality of postoperative recovery in adult patients.
1. In the Statistical Analysis section, the authors stated: “Continuous variables were presented as mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).” However, no results involving SMD were presented. Please clarify which studies, if any, used SMD.
2. The authors mentioned that “The risk of bias was classified into three levels: ‘low risk,’ ‘high risk,’ and ‘unclear.’” However, the quality of evidence was assessed using GRADEPro, and the evidence was “classifified” as very low, low, moderate, or high. These statements appear inconsistent; please clarify the distinction between the risk of bias assessment and the GRADE quality of evidence ratings.
3. It is not recommended to choose between random-effects or fixed-effects meta-analysis based solely on the I² value. You may consider presenting results from both models for comparison.
4. Please check for minor English spelling and formatting issues, such as change “I2” to “I².”
Study design is Ok.
Finding is Ok.
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.