Rehabilitation for Functioning and Quality of Life in Patients with Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: A Scoping Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The presented study is carefully prepared, its contents seem to be correct, and the presented results are interesting and potentially useful. However, I have some minor suggestions for consideration and further elaboration.

2.1 Literature strategy

You mentioned the use of the PRISMA model; why not include in this section the usual diagram of this model showing the process of identification and selection of sources?

2.2 Study Identification

Since you mentioned the method of conducting the literature review by two independent reviewers, would it be possible to show the inter-rater reliability?

Table 1

Would it be possible to identify relevant sources for each characteristic?

3.2 Therapautic interventions

Please standardize the terms used (the title refers to "interventions" while the table refers to "options").

It would be useful to include a summary table at the end of sections 3 and 4 (and perhaps 5).

Chapter 4

Please consider including a section on the research tools used - HRQoL is not the only tool for studying QoL.

Conclusion

It would be useful to highlight the specific benefits of the scoping review carried out. Are there any specific recommendations arising from your scoping review?

Please consider whether it would be appropriate to narratively describe the reflections of the sources reviewed in the Discussion section. Were the sources comparable in all respects? Were there any indications of ambiguous or even controversial findings? Are there any limitations to your findings?

In conclusion, the manuscript makes a significant contribution to the field, it reflects a significant portion of the relevant resources, and with the improvements listed above, its impact could be even greater. Thank you for your commitment to advancing our understanding in this topic. I look forward to seeing the revised version of your manuscript.

Sincerely,

Author Response

Dear authors,

The presented study is carefully prepared, its contents seem to be correct, and the presented results are interesting and potentially useful. However, I have some minor suggestions for consideration and further elaboration.

First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for the time spent in reading our work and helping us improving it.

2.1 Literature strategy

You mentioned the use of the PRISMA model; why not include in this section the usual diagram of this model showing the process of identification and selection of sources?

Thank you for your insightful suggestion. We have now included the PRISMA flow diagram to illustrate the process of identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion of sources in our scoping review. The new Figure 1 is in the updated manuscript.

 

2.2 Study Identification

Since you mentioned the method of conducting the literature review by two independent reviewers, would it be possible to show the inter-rater reliability?

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We understand the importance of inter-rater reliability, however, as our study is a scoping review conducted following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, the reporting of inter-rater reliability is not a requirement.

That said, to further ensure the robustness of our review process, we followed a thorough and collaborative approach where any discrepancies between the independent reviewers were discussed and resolved through consensus. We believe this method has adequately addressed the potential for bias and ensured the reliability of our study selection process.

 

Table 1

Would it be possible to identify relevant sources for each characteristic?

Thank you for your suggestion. To avoid redundancy, we did not include sources in Table 1, as well as the other tables, as they are thoroughly detailed in the text. This approach ensures the tables remain concise and easy to read. We appreciate your understanding.

3.2 Therapautic interventions

Please standardize the terms used (the title refers to "interventions" while the table refers to "options").

We would like to thank the reviewer for the insightful comment. As suggested, we chose a coherent term for both paragraph’s title and table. The term is “intervention” and corrections are highlighted in the text.

 

It would be useful to include a summary table at the end of sections 3 and 4 (and perhaps 5).

We would like to thank the reviewer for the insightful comment. We have now included summary tables at the end of sections 3 and 4. For section 5, we believe the existing figures effectively summarize the data and convey the necessary information. We hope these additions improve the readability and utility of the manuscript. The new Tables 3 and 4 were added and highlighted in the text. 

 

Chapter 4

Please consider including a section on the research tools used - HRQoL is not the only tool for studying QoL.

We would like to thank the reviewer for the insightful comment. We improved the manuscript by characterizing the tools used to assess QoL in accordance with the Reviewer’s suggestion.

 

Conclusion

It would be useful to highlight the specific benefits of the scoping review carried out. Are there any specific recommendations arising from your scoping review?

Please consider whether it would be appropriate to narratively describe the reflections of the sources reviewed in the Discussion section. Were the sources comparable in all respects? Were there any indications of ambiguous or even controversial findings? Are there any limitations to your findings?

We would like to thank the reviewer for the insightful comment. As suggested, we discussed recommendations and limitations of our study. The new paragraph was added and highlighted in the text.

In conclusion, the manuscript makes a significant contribution to the field, it reflects a significant portion of the relevant resources, and with the improvements listed above, its impact could be even greater. Thank you for your commitment to advancing our understanding in this topic. I look forward to seeing the revised version of your manuscript.

Sincerely,

We would like to thank the reviewer for the appreciation.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor and Authors,

 

I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled "Rehabilitation for Functioning and Quality of Life in Patients with Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: A Scoping Review."

 

This manuscript provides a comprehensive examination of the subject and effectively focuses on personalized medicine with tailored treatment. However, I have some suggestions that could further improve the manuscript:

 

1. Detailed Dates and Strategy in "2.2. Study Identification":

 

A more detailed description of the dates and strategy used should be included in “2.2. Study Identification: Two independent reviewers performed a literature search between September 2022 and February 2024”, should be specified.

It would be helpful to provide the dates when article selection was performed and to describe how discrepancies were resolved. Additionally, details about the number of reviewers involved in the consensus discussions, including whether the third author was a member of the authorship team, should be clarified.

Information on the duration of each step in the review process would add to the transparency. Including a table or flow diagram showing the process of literature selection, along with reasons for exclusion at each step, would significantly enhance clarity.

 

2.Addressing Gaps in Existing Research:

A paragraph discussing the limitations of the study should be added. This should include a discussion of gaps in existing research and provide recommendations for clinical practice based on the findings.

 

3.The source or software used for creating the images should be described.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend a thorough review of the manuscript for grammatical errors. For instance, in the initial submission, there were several areas that needed correction, such as verb tense consistency and punctuation. For example:

 

Original: “The study aimed to provide an overview of the literature and highlight key areas that needs further research.”

 

Corrected: “The study aimed to provide an overview of the literature and highlight key areas that need further research.”

 

Original: “Patients were often experiencing difficulties with daily activities and required comprehensive support.”

 

Corrected: “Patients often experienced difficulties with daily activities and required comprehensive support.”

 

Original: “This paper discusses various rehabilitation methods that had been effective in improving patient quality of life.”

 

Corrected: “This paper discusses various rehabilitation methods that have been effective in improving patient quality of life.”

 

Original: “There is various rehabilitation methods that could potentially improve the quality of life for MPM patients.”

 

Corrected: “There are various rehabilitation methods that could potentially improve the quality of life for MPM patients.”

Author Response

Dear Editor and Authors,

 I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled "Rehabilitation for Functioning and Quality of Life in Patients with Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: A Scoping Review."

 This manuscript provides a comprehensive examination of the subject and effectively focuses on personalized medicine with tailored treatment. However, I have some suggestions that could further improve the manuscript:

First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for the time spent in reading our work and helping us improving it.

1. Detailed Dates and Strategy in "2.2. Study Identification":

 A more detailed description of the dates and strategy used should be included in “2.2. Study Identification: Two independent reviewers performed a literature search between September 2022 and February 2024”, should be specified.

It would be helpful to provide the dates when article selection was performed and to describe how discrepancies were resolved. Additionally, details about the number of reviewers involved in the consensus discussions, including whether the third author was a member of the authorship team, should be clarified.

Information on the duration of each step in the review process would add to the transparency. Including a table or flow diagram showing the process of literature selection, along with reasons for exclusion at each step, would significantly enhance clarity.

 We would like to thank the reviewer for the insightful comments. As suggested, we specified the information requested. The new paragraph was added and highlighted in the text.

 

2.Addressing Gaps in Existing Research:

A paragraph discussing the limitations of the study should be added. This should include a discussion of gaps in existing research and provide recommendations for clinical practice based on the findings.

We would like to thank the reviewer for the insightful comment. As suggested by Reviewer 1 as well, we discussed recommendations and limitations of our study. The new paragraph was added and highlighted in the text.

 

3.The source or software used for creating the images should be described.

 We would like to thank the reviewer for the comment. The figures included in our manuscript are original creations. We have developed these figures specifically for this study to visually represent our findings and enhance clarity. No external source or software was used in their creation.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend a thorough review of the manuscript for grammatical errors. For instance, in the initial submission, there were several areas that needed correction, such as verb tense consistency and punctuation. For example:

 Original: “The study aimed to provide an overview of the literature and highlight key areas that needs further research.”

Corrected: “The study aimed to provide an overview of the literature and highlight key areas that need further research.”

 

Original: “Patients were often experiencing difficulties with daily activities and required comprehensive support.”

 Corrected: “Patients often experienced difficulties with daily activities and required comprehensive support.”

 

Original: “This paper discusses various rehabilitation methods that had been effective in improving patient quality of life.”

 Corrected: “This paper discusses various rehabilitation methods that have been effective in improving patient quality of life.”

 

Original: “There is various rehabilitation methods that could potentially improve the quality of life for MPM patients.”

 

Corrected: “There are various rehabilitation methods that could potentially improve the quality of life for MPM patients.”

 

We would like to thank the Reviewer for the insightful comment. We improved the text accordingly.