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.
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PeerJ.
The Reviewers have positively evaluated the paper; therefore, it can be accepted for publication.
Kind regards,
Marialaura Di Tella
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Celine Gallagher, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
I have no further questions.
I have no further questions.
I have no further questions.
I have no further questions.
The authors have addressed my comments in a satisfactory manner.
Study design is sound.
no comment
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PeerJ.
The reviewers made some suggestions to improve the quality of the article. Please revise the manuscript taking into account all these comments and suggestions.
Kind regards,
Marialaura Di Tella
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial 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.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
The Authors made a systematic PubMed search for their purposes. The manuscript is well written and structured. The topic is fascinating. The figures are appealing. A table, or more, with study summaries is advisable.
The idea of carrynig out a systematic search is advisable, but the authors should make clear that they underwent a systematic revision of the literature. If they do not, they should explain why in the introduction and what the actual scope of this review is. In particular, the audience they are expecting to reach.
The findings and the area explored are comprehensive of the topic and subtopics.
English grammar revision and a double check for typos are required.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript on the interaction and mechanisms of depression and cardiovascular disease (CVD). The topic you have explored is undeniably important, particularly in light of the growing recognition of the bidirectional relationship between these two conditions and their significant impact on global public health.
While this manuscript presents an important subject, I believe that further refinement of these aspects would be necessary to ensure a more substantial and impactful contribution to the field.
The article explores several biological mechanisms, but it tends to focus on theoretical pathways with limited empirical support. A more critical evaluation of the literature would strengthen the manuscript's contribution to our understanding of the complex interactions between depression and CVD. The treatment strategies, while briefly mentioned, are not explored in sufficient detail to provide clinicians with actionable insights. Given the significant clinical challenges posed by this comorbidity, a more thorough discussion of current treatments and research gaps would be valuable.
The author may consider a clearer explanation of the interconnections between the different pathophysiological mechanisms, as well as a more focused discussion on patient outcomes. The lack of this integration weakens the clinical relevance of the review, as it does not fully address the impact of these conditions on patient prognosis and quality of life.
Addressing these limitations should improve this review. I wish you continued success in this work. I recommend "minor revision" for this manuscript.
The authors reviewed the potential mechanisms behind the comorbidity between depression and CVD. These findings may have the potential to facilitate the treatment of CVD combined with depression. I have some recommendations for the authors:
1. The authors need to discuss causal relationships between depression and CVD, as demonstrated previously (PMID: 34859065). Drug use is a vital confounding factor that needs to be discussed, as a previous study showed that it is antidepressants that boost the risk of CVD (PMID: 38490691).
2. Some confounding factors can be discussed, such as education and income, given that they are vital risk factors for CVD and mental disorders (PMID: 38440407).
**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.
The study design is appropriate.
The findings are solid.
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.