Peer review report
Reviewer: Daniel Griffin, MD PhD,
Institution: Columbia University
ORCID: 0000-0001-5853-6906
email: danielgriffinmd@gmail.com, dgriffin@cumc.columbia.edu
Please describe your research in a sentence or a few key words
COIVD-19, general infectious disease, immunology, virology
General comments
The authors lay out a reasonable protocol for this type of investigation.
Section 1 – Serious concerns
- Do you have any serious concerns about the manuscript such as fraud, plagiarism, unethical or unsafe practices? No
- Have authors’ provided the necessary ethics approval (from authors’ institution or an ethics committee)? Yes
Section 2 – Language quality
- How would you rate the English language quality? High quality
Section 3 – validity and reproducibility
-
Is the reasons for conducting the study and its objectives clearly explained? Yes
-
Is the study design appropriate? Yes
-
Are sufficient details provided so that the method can be replicated? Yes
-
Are datasets available so that others could use them? not applicable
Section 4 – Suggestions
The authors lay out a reasonable protocol for this type of investigation that is based on a fairly standard approach with the standard GRADE grading.
Section 5 – Decision
Verified manuscript: The content is scientifically sound, only minor amendments (if any) are suggested.
Discussion, revision and decision
Decision
Verified manuscript — The content is scientifically sound, only minor amendments (if any) are suggested.
Revision
Reviewer: Dacre Knight
(1) Included the World Health Organization (WHO) and the National Institute for Health and CARE Excellence (NICE) definitions of PASC. See: Lines 51; 332-339
(2) The PECO criteria is listed (and not just implied) in the body of the manuscript. See: Lines 207-237.
Decision changed — Verified manuscript: The content is scientifically sound.
Reviewer: Yin Qianlan
(3) The purpose of the study was revised for clarity. See: Lines 114-171
Reviewer did not respond. Therefore, a third reviewer (Daniel Griffin) was asked to review the manuscript. They gave the decision, verified manuscript.
Peer review report
Reviewer: Yin Qianlan
Institution: Navy Medical University
email: yinqianlan@smmu.edu.cn
Section 1 – Serious concerns
- Do you have any serious concerns about the manuscript such as fraud, plagiarism, unethical or unsafe practices? No
- Have authors’ provided the necessary ethics approval (from authors’ institution or an ethics committee)? Yes
Section 2 – Language quality
- How would you rate the English language quality?
High quality
Section 3 – validity and reproducibility
-
Is the reasons for conducting the study and its objectives clearly explained? No
-
Is the study design appropriate? Yes
-
Are sufficient details provided so that the method can be replicated? Yes
-
Are datasets available so that others could use them? not applicable
Section 4 – Suggestions
- Based on your answers in section 3 how could the author improve the protocol?
As an important part of a review is the declaration of the purpose, the introduction should be the core of the article. However, after reading the beginning of the paper, I could realize the seriousness of COVID-19, but I cannot see the key point of the research. There is a lot of data to emphasize the worse results, but I don’t know how this data contributed to the relationship between the major topic of Post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 and adverse psychiatric outcomes, for example, the introduction about the effect of therapies. Hence, more organized structure for the introduction of could be more concise and easier for readers.
Section 5 – Decision
Requires revisions: The manuscript contains objective errors or fundamental flaws that must be addressed and/or major revisions are suggested.
Peer review report
Reviewer: Dacre Knight, MD
Institution: Mayo Clinic
email: Knight.dacre@mayo.edu
Section 1 – Serious concerns
- Do you have any serious concerns about the manuscript such as fraud, plagiarism, unethical or unsafe practices? No
- Have authors’ provided the necessary ethics approval (from authors’ institution or an ethics committee)? not applicable
Section 2 – Language quality
- How would you rate the English language quality?
High quality
Section 3 – validity and reproducibility
-
Is the reasons for conducting the study and its objectives clearly explained? Yes
-
Is the study design appropriate? Yes
-
Are sufficient details provided so that the method can be replicated? Yes
-
Are datasets available so that others could use them? not applicable
Section 4 – Suggestions
- Based on your answers in section 3 how could the author improve the protocol?
There is a more specific definition of PASC that should be included (with reference). Need to list specific medical databases to search, not just “various”. PECO criteria needs to be listed, not only implied that it will be used.
- Do you have any other suggestions, feedback, or comments for the Author?
GRADE approach will be useful, as is mentioned along with narrative synthesis if needed. Strengths and limits seem accurate, good to list.
Section 5 – Decision
Verified with reservations: The content is scientifically sound but has shortcomings that could be improved by further studies and/or minor revisions.
