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,
All issues have been resolved. I am happy to let you know that i am now accepting your manuscript for publication at PeerJ.
Dear authors,
Thank you for your submission and hard work. Overall, the study seems methodologically sound with important findings, especially if or with the manuscript emphasising the regional significance, discussing counterintuitive results thoroughly, and situating the work within the broader literature.
For such and in order also for maximum potential scientific impact, I would like to know the following or for you to consider the following:
- The study’s design limits causal inference. Consider including a more in-depth discussion on how the associations observed should be interpreted with caution and framed as correlations rather than causal relationships. (where indeed in future perspectives you can suggest future longitudinal or interventional studies to explore causality further.)
- Self-reported measures may introduce recall bias and social desirability bias. Discuss potential impacts on specific findings, especially sensitive behaviours like smoking or health status reporting. Propose validation steps or triangulation with objective data sources in future studies. Include or highlight measures taken to reduce bias, such as ensuring anonymity, which they already note.
- The study primarily provides quantitative associations but lacks exploration of the underlying reasons behind behavioural patterns. Revise or include integrating qualitative research to understand barriers, perceptions, and motivations for vision screening.
- Although the sample is large and well-selected within Riyadh, regional differences across Saudi Arabia may limit extrapolation. Clarify this limitation and propose multicenter or nationally representative studies. (also discuss more in-depth global similar data)
- Some predictors (e.g., age, sex) are non-modifiable; identifying actionable factors would strengthen policy relevance. Pinpoint the importance of targeting modifiable factors such as health awareness, behavioural change, and access. (don't just lightly mention it)
- now, more in terms of proofreading: Ensure that tables and figures clearly depict key associations and stratified analyses, including confidence intervals and effect sizes; provide nuanced interpretation of findings, addressing unexpected directions or non-significant associations; discuss potential confounders.
I think some of the above could also be clarified by improving clarity in the methods section, explicitly stating prior sample size calculations and power analyses. Strengthen the discussion to contextualise findings within regional and global literature, emphasising novel insights. And, include a dedicated limitations section that thoroughly explores biases, confounders, and areas needing further research.
Develop more specific, evidence-based recommendations for policymakers and practitioners to enhance vision screening uptake. Emphasise the potential role of community health workers, tailored awareness campaigns, and integration into routine care.
Many thanks in advance.
In the Abstract section, the phrase “...healthcare settings. .” contains a typographical redundancy with two consecutive periods. This should be corrected for clarity and professionalism. Additionally, the sentence "Data were analyzed using the SPSS software" is followed shortly after by a near-identical statement, “All analyses were performed using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) software.” Consider consolidating or rephrasing to avoid repetition and enhance narrative efficiency.
The Introduction provides a solid foundation but could benefit from greater specificity in framing the gap in existing literature. While the phrase “...research specifically addressing vision screening prevalence and its predictors is notably scarce” is directionally correct, elaborating briefly on the limitations of prior regional studies (or lack thereof) could strengthen the justification for this study and its contribution to the field.
The choice of a p-value threshold of <0.25 for inclusion in multivariable regression is methodologically sound but somewhat unconventional in broader practice. It would be beneficial to briefly justify this decision, perhaps by referencing established literature or previous use cases, to preempt potential reviewer queries and reinforce the rigor of the analytic framework.
The word "significant" is used repeatedly throughout the manuscript. Find synonims to improve the readability and stylistic variety of the text
Definition of "Vision screening" is necessary in the introduction
The statistical analyses are appropriate and clearly reportedSlight clarification of statistical assumptions could be presented
The findings are consistent. You could consider including a brief analysis or comment on possible interactions between education and employment
Dear Authors,
Based on the reviews provided by experts in this field the paper can not be published in this form and needs accurate corrections to be considered for the publish. In particular, I suggest to re-write the introduction highlighting the gap between the literature existing and your aim. Also, the methodology and in particular the statistical analysis needs several improvement.
The results and discussion sessions can not be evaluated in this form.
-The paper reports on a topic of public importance globally. However, there are some major technical issues which make the paper not publishable.
-The introduction is unnecessarily lengthy, and it lacks focus.
-The study needs a new analysis for univariate analysis followed by complete multivariate analysis. During univariate analysis, all independent variables must be analyzed in one Table.
-the analytical findings are compromised due to failure to perform bivariate or univariate analysis before switching to modelling after controlling for confounding factors.
-Authors performed univariate analysis for only DM and HTN, followed by multivariable analysis. This is wrong!
-Because of the study needing re-analysis, personally, I think the paper was submitted prematurely and for that reason its merit and dimension cannot be judged.
This study "Predictors of vision screening among Saudis at primary healthcare settings in Riyadh: Findings from a cross-sectional survey" aimed to identify predictors of vision screening among Saudi residents. A cross-sectional survey involving 14,239 individuals aged 18 years and older was conducted in Riyadh using a validated electronic questionnaire. Data were collected on sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics, health status, and comorbidities. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the prevalence of vision screening was only 9.1%. Key predictors included older age, higher education, marital status, retirement, and comorbidities such as diabetes and obesity. Married individuals were 1.46 times more likely to undergo screening, while diabetes and obesity increased the odds by 1.37 and 1.34, respectively. The study concluded that vision screening rates in Saudi Arabia remain low, highlighting the need for qualitative research to understand barriers and the allocation of resources to improve uptake.
Here are my comments:
Abstract
- The abstract is concise and provides key details, including the study's objective, methods, results, and conclusion.
- Statistical findings are highlighted effectively.
- The background could briefly mention the global or regional burden of vision impairment to enhance context.
- Consider specifying the primary reasons for low prevalence of vision screening based on the study findings.
Introduction
- The introduction effectively outlines the study's rationale and significance.
- Relevant literature and gaps in knowledge are identified.
- Clarify the specific contributions of this study compared to prior research in Saudi Arabia.
- Include a brief explanation of why predictors like marital status and employment might influence vision screening.
Methods
- Detailed description of the sampling methodology, survey design, and validation process.
- Use of multistage cluster sampling enhances generalizability.
- The rationale for including/excluding specific sociodemographic variables should be discussed.
- Provide more details on how potential confounders were handled in the logistic regression analysis.
- A discussion on the limitations of self-reported data, particularly regarding health status and behaviors, would strengthen the transparency.
Results
- Clear presentation of demographic data and prevalence rates.
- The logistic regression results are well-detailed, with appropriate confidence intervals and p-values.
- Tables could include additional annotations or brief explanations for key results.
- Highlight the most unexpected or novel findings in the text, such as any surprising predictors.
Discussion
- Links findings to prior studies, enhancing the interpretative depth.
- Practical implications for improving vision screening rates are addressed.
- Expand on the barriers to vision screening identified or hypothesized in the study.
- Discuss more thoroughly how the findings could inform health policy, particularly in resource-limited settings.
- Highlight the broader implications of comorbidities like diabetes and obesity for public health interventions.
Conclusion
- Summarizes findings succinctly.
- Proposes actionable recommendations for future research and interventions.
- Consider framing the conclusion in terms of actionable steps for healthcare providers or policymakers.
- A brief mention of how findings could impact regional or global strategies for vision health would add value.
My comments and suggestions for improvement have been provided above.
My comments and suggestions for improvement have been provided above.
My comments and suggestions for improvement have been provided above.
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.