Comparing Frequency and Severity Ratings for ME/CFS versus Controls
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Interesting study. Methodology respected
Author Response
Thank this reviewer for the comments and no revisions were requested.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
This is a very unusual report where the authors split the manuscript into 2 studies. The second study was not even mentioned in the abstract, which is very confusing. The authors must review their manuscript carefully and make sure the 2 studies presented here will be presented in a more concise and logical matters.
For the first study, why controls with a much lower age (the student group in the DePaul Questionnaire study) were retained? Compared to the cases, this group is clearly different.
For the second study, the method and result section are messy and not consistent. The authors should explain more on why the study was conducted and its relation to the first study.
The authors should try to use formal language for the manuscript. Please check for grammatical errors carefully.
Author Response
The second study is now more clearly mentioned in the abstract. Also we have tried to be as clear as possible about this study so that it is concise and logical.
We agree that in the first study, the controls are at a much lower age and that is due to them being recruited at a college setting and this is now mentioned as a limitation in the study.
We now try to provide more justification for why the second study was conducted.
We now check for all grammatical errors throughout and tried to correct them.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Thank you for improving the manuscript. It is now much better.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It should be pointed out that the criteria for sample selection are not homogeneous among the different datasets chosen, as in some groups the patients self-reported, in others they were chosen by the doctor, in others they were reported by patient associations. Then, the qualification of the selecting doctors is not specified (neurologists? psychiatrists? others?). These are limitations of the study which, if not resolvable, should be reported as limitations.
The composition of the groups sees the prevalence of women. There could therefore be a gender influence on the perception of symptoms. If a better randomisation of the samples is not possible, this should also be reported among the limitations of the study.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
It should be pointed out that the criteria for sample selection are not homogeneous among the different datasets chosen, as in some groups the patients self-reported, in others they were chosen by the doctor, in others they were reported by patient associations. Then, the qualification of the selecting doctors is not specified (neurologists? psychiatrists? others?). These are limitations of the study which, if not resolvable, should be reported as limitations.
response: These limitations in the study have now been listed in the discussion section.
The composition of the groups sees the prevalence of women. There could therefore be a gender influence on the perception of symptoms. If a better randomisation of the samples is not possible, this should also be reported among the limitations of the study.
response: This limitation has also now been pointed out although almost all published ME/CFS studies have this same problem.
Reviewer 2 Report
In their study, the authors examined the frequency and severity of classic ME / CFS symptoms in patients with ME / CFS and concluded that collecting data on both measures of symptom burden provides clear indicators that can be used to better assess patients' symptom burden.
Comments:
Abstract: Please explain the whole words for the abbreviations ME / CFS.
Introduction: sentence in line 17 is unnecessary
Methods: Lines 74-75: why did the authors separate this sentence: "The dataset for the current study was aggregated across a variety of international populations as discussed below."
line 75: the sentence "DePaul sample" is unnecessary.
Results: The authors need to include a flowchart to better follow.
Table 1 and Table 2: Decide whether to write 0.00 or .00.
It must be consistent.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
In their study, the authors examined the frequency and severity of classic ME / CFS symptoms in patients with ME / CFS and concluded that collecting data on both measures of symptom burden provides clear indicators that can be used to better assess patients' symptom burden.
Comments:
Abstract: Please explain the whole words for the abbreviations ME / CFS.
response: This has now been taken care of.
Introduction: sentence in line 17 is unnecessary
response: This sentence has been taken out.
Methods: Lines 74-75: why did the authors separate this sentence: "The dataset for the current study was aggregated across a variety of international populations as discussed below."
response: This sentence has now not been taken out.
line 75: the sentence "DePaul sample" is unnecessary.
Response: That name has been taken out.
Results: The authors need to include a flowchart to better follow.
Response: Not sure how a flow chart would help but I have now put in subheadings that might help the reader.
Table 1 and Table 2: Decide whether to write 0.00 or .00.
Response: Have now made this change.
It must be consistent.
Response: Agree and it is now consisent
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have made minor improvements, but the most important one has not been implemented.
Nevertheless, I have great concerns major concern regarding the flowchart that the authors did not create.
This is necessary because the manuscript is even more confusing without it, and adding more text with additional subheadings makes it even more so.
In addition, the subheadings are written unusual and are non-inviting.
Author Response
I have now added a flow diagram to my paper.
Len Jason
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have made a chart that doesn't follow the text: Line 72-161.
Unfortunately, this is not a proper flowchart.
The figure 1 is not introduced in the text.
