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.
Thanks for your detailed revisions. I think the paper can be accepted now.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Bob Patton, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no
no
no
i am satisfied with most of your revision. However, there are two minor suggestion for the revised manuscript.
1. Line 147. I suggest using "all, P<0.05" to replace "P≤0.047".
2. Table 2. OR is a abbreviation. Please add a footnote.
none
none
none
none
No further comments
No further comments
No further comments. I am satisfied with the revisions.
No further comments.
Although the study is a simple cross-sectional survey, findings are interesting and clinically relevant. These comments are detailed enough for the revision. Please consider them and revise the paper accordingly.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
None
none
none
see the attachment.
The literature review is comprehensive
1. The authors described that their sample of patients with cataract, but I think the representativeness of this sample is also limited because patients were from two hospitals only. Please consider to tone down their sentences or terms. The strength is consecutive sampling method used.
2. For administering the HADS scales, face-to-face interview, training of investigators and inter-rater reliability must be reported. Did the authors tested this before the formal survey?
3.To facilitate the policy-making of mental health services such as CLP, data on mental health services utilization are also necessary. It would be helpful if the authors provide such data.
Response rate of subjects is lacking in the results.
1.If possible, the recognition and management of depression among patients with cataract in Chinese clinical practice is also useful. It would improve the quality of study much if the authors have investigated these.
2.The study procedures, completing self-administered scales via clinical interviews, would result in underestimation of the prevalence. Please discuss this possibility.
The paper is written clearly and readable. The authors systematically summarized what has been known and unknown about depression in patients with cataract and also analyzed the limitations of existing literatures.
The study design is a hospital-based cross-sectional survey, determining the prevalence and correlates of depressive symptoms of Chinese patients with cataract. Given that studies in this area are limited, the current study fills some knowledge gaps.
The study design is appropariate and analytic approaches are correct. Findings are good and conclusions are made strictly.
I have the below comments for the authors.
1. One major limitation of previous studies is the limited sample representativeness as criticized by the authors. However, the present study is only a two hospital-based survey, I do not agree that the sample recruited by the authors is representative.
2. The sample size is 339.In general, considerations for sample size estimation should be provided for an epidemiological survey.
3. The term "depression" is unclear. In fact, the authors focused on depressive symptoms, not disorders. Please address this issue all throughout the paper.
4. The other question is no data on depressive disorders, such outcome measurement is more clinically relevant.
5. I speculate that there would be more clinical correlates associated with depressive symptoms such as length of illness, family support, functional impairments and chronic illnesses. However, it seems that the authors assessed a limited number of clinical characteristics of the patients.
6. HADS measure both depression and anxiety, but the authors focused on depression only. It would be helpful if results on anxiety are available.
7. For data analysis, moderate and good levels of family economic status were combined. Reason for this should be specified.
8. Treatment factors such as days before and after the operation and success in cataract operation are also potentially important for the emotional status of patients.
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.