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 revising your manuscript to address the concerns of the reviewers. Reviewer 1 now recommends acceptance and I am satisfied that the comments of reviewer 2 have been addressed. The manuscript is now ready for publication.
The authors have properly addressed my concerns in the revised manuscript. I have no further comments.
Well designed.
Solid.
None.
**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
The authors have responded to my comments with clarity and professionalism. The response shows attention to structural improvements, particularly regarding the justification of exclusion criteria and clarity of study novelty. The manuscript now provides a clearer rationale for focusing on WeChat Official Accounts (WOAs).
The authors clarified the rating process, including rater training and consensus discussions. However, the lack of inter-rater reliability metrics (e.g., Cohen’s kappa) is a methodological limitation, even if not technically feasible post hoc. The scoring approach based on validated tools (e.g., JAMA benchmarks, DISCERN) is appropriate.
The authors have made a commendable effort to enhance the credibility of their findings by expanding on the implications and improving the recommendations section. They have strengthened the study’s validity through these targeted revisions.
Proof reading is needed before consideration of final publication.
**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
The manuscript by Shu et al. presents a well-structured and methodologically sound analysis of the reliability and quality of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori)-related health information on WeChat Official Accounts (WOAs). The study is highly relevant given the increasing reliance on social media for health information and the risks of misinformation. The use of standardized evaluation tools (JAMA benchmark criteria, modified DISCERN, and Global Quality Scale) provides a framework for assessing information quality. However, several concerns, outlined below, limit the clarity of the study’s narrative:
The exclusion criteria for articles are briefly mentioned but require explicit justification. For instance, why was the threshold set at 30,000 pageviews? Were potentially high-quality but less-viewed articles excluded?
Some sentences are awkwardly phrased. For example, "To change the status quo and improve the reliability and quality of online health information needs more efforts." and "Addressing these challenges and improving the reliability of online health information requires concerted efforts." A thorough proofreading by a native English speaker or a professional language editing service is recommended.
While the manuscript states that raters resolved discrepancies through discussion, reporting an inter-rater reliability measure (e.g., Cohen’s kappa) would strengthen the study’s credibility. The authors should provide a rationale for the selection criteria and report inter-rater reliability scores to enhance methodological transparency.
The manuscript proposes several strategies to improve health information quality on WOAs. While valuable, these recommendations should be more actionable and evidence-based. The authors should provide concrete examples of existing regulatory mechanisms in digital health information management and expand on strategies to empower users to discern reliable from unreliable health content.
The manuscript underscores the importance of evaluating online health information. However, the novelty of this study compared to prior research (e.g., studies assessing health information quality on platforms like YouTube, Bilibili, and TikTok) needs to be better articulated. I suggest that the authors include a stronger comparison with previous studies evaluating H. pylori information on other platforms and clarify why WOAs, in particular, warrant investigation.
H.pylori is still a public health problem despite effective eradication protocols particularly in adults. Though the prevalence of infection is decreasing in children and adolescents, prevention of infection should be primary concern given the high rates of antibiotic resistance among children and adolescents.
I am pleased to receive such an assignment regarding the reliability and quality of health information about Helicobacter pylori on social media.
The article is written clearly and without any ambiguity. It complies with professional standards and guidelines. The authors wrote the background emphasizing the chronological progression of the data regarding H.pylori infection and the importance of the bacteria for the public health. With the rapid development of modern technology in the 21st century, access to the health information has become easier, the reliability and the quality of these information has been pointed out by the authors, and the aim of the study was clearly depicted in accordance to the PeerJ's writing guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION: The introduction line 50-101. Line 50-66 background information regarding H.pylori infection is far too long, should be limited in accordance to the title of the manuscript.
Line 67-94 are related to the quality of health information about H.pylori infection and the possible public health effects of reading and acting on this poor quality information.
This part of the introduction should be shortened.
Line 95-101 aim part of the introduction contains some information which was explained in detail in metod section. Explanation about the cales used for rating can be removed / shortened.
As the authors indicated there are only two video as a source of information on H.pylori therefore this is a novel study and needs to be highlighted better.
YouTube as a source of information on Helicobacter pylori: Content and quality analysis.
Ergenç M, Uprak TK.Helicobacter. 2023 Aug;28(4):e12971. doi: 10.1111/hel.12971. Epub 2023 Mar 21.PMID: 36942858
The status quo of short videos as a health information source of Helicobacterpylori: a cross-sectional study.
Lai Y, Liao F, He Z, Lai W, Zhu C, Du Y, Li Z.Front Public Health. 2024 Jan 8;11:1344212. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1344212. eCollection 2023.PMID: 38259733 Free PMC article.
Authors described their study design very clearly, limiting the search for a specific time period (2.5 years) and including only the most commonly viewed (most influential) articles only. Articles were classified according identity of the publisher, topical content. The quality and reliability of the articles were assessed by using three validated tools. The authors also emphasized that a small group study was conducted before rating process began, to familiarize the raters with the process.
RECOMMENDATION: Line 135 Rating process this part requires some explanation about the researchers / raters, and the distribution of the articles among them. Are they clinician? Are they gastroenterologist? Are they medical students? How many raters were included to this process? Did each rater use 3 tools for the same article?
The results are clearly presented by categorizing the findings, and supplied by tables and graphics which were clear enough to be easily understood. All of the findings were analysed according the source and the topics and the effectiveness of three validated tools was also compared among themselves.
No recommendation.
The lack of strict criteria and a regulatory system regarding health issues on social platforms can harm the readers more than it helps.
I found this paper very comprehensive and useful in terms of scientifically questioning concerns on this issue. I also think that the solution suggestions brought by the authors should be taken into consideration by health professionals, authorized institutions and even health care providers.
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.