Systematic Review Protocol: Anhedonia in Youth and the Role of Internet-Related Behavior

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well- written protocol that addresses the importance of of Internet Related Behaviour on Anhedonia in Young. This is an important topic. Overall, the authors do an excellent job of presenting the results.

A few points that would improve the protocol are:

In the last part of the background, it would be appropriate to add that the entire study is focused on the young population.

This protocol not only has limitations, but also some strengths. In addition to the limitations, it would be advisable to add.

Author Response

We are deeply grateful to the Editor and the Reviewer for the time and attention devoted to our manuscript, and for their valuable comments, which we truly believe helped to improve it. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Brief summary: This interesting study focuses on the topic of anhedonia in young in relation to internet related behaviour. The authors described a Systematic Review Protocol registered on the Open Science Framework register (online OSF) and structured their work using the PRISMA Guidelines. Please see my comments below.

 

Abstract:

 

- Considering this is the study protocol, the abstract could be bonified in terms of contextual elements related to the needs of such systematic review.

- Line 19 mentions predisposing genetic mechanisms which seems out of context considering the title of the protocole and the introductory sentences. Please clarify.

- The aim of the systematic review should be stated as well as the intended summary of the methodology (databases used, inclusion/exclusion criteria).

 

Introduction:

 

- Regarding the topic of depression, the authors are encouraged to use the DSM-5 or ICD definition of Major Depressive disorder and provide this definition to the readership.

- Title uses Internet related behaviour as a main concept whereas in the manuscript (introduction) the term used is online behaviour (line 76). The main concept of Internet related behaviour is not introduced nor discussed.

- Young people is very vague. Children, adolescent, young adults? Why this specific population. This is not clear from the introduction.

 

Methods:

 

1. Links should not be put directly in the body of the manuscript. Please reference.

2. Why is PICOS in bold?

3. Considering the topic, the authors are encouraged to add relevant databases such as PsycInfo, Embase and Medline. Otherwise, a large body of the literature on the topic will be missed.

4. Why are reviews on the topic excluded?

 

Overall this protocole is very clear and aligned with the PRISMA Guidelines.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Nil

Author Response

We are deeply grateful to the Editor and the Reviewer for the time and attention devoted to our manuscript, and for their valuable comments, which we truly believe helped to improve it. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The submitted review protocol is carefully prepared, its background, objectives and methods seem appropriate. However, I have some minor suggestions and comments:

The research topic is clearly stated, as are the methods and expected results. However, the objectives need to be clarified, especially the observed behavior of the participants in each study involved needs to be specified. Line 93 refers to "Internet-related behavior", which does not correspond to the search query, which focuses primarily on smartphone use and completely ignores the use of the Internet on PCs (which was significant a few years ago).

Line 97 refers to “widespread use”, which is different from “addiction”, “excessive use”, “problematic use”, or “extensive use”. Moreover, widespread use does not necessarily have a negative connotation. It would therefore be useful to consolidate the terminology used.

Line 97 also refers to internet-connected devices, but the search query explicitly emphasizes smartphones, although the range of relevant devices may be much wider (in addition to the PCs already mentioned, it also includes PDAs, laptops, tablets and many other devices, etc.). Moreover, the use of such devices does not necessarily imply Internet-related behavior (see, for example, offline gaming).

Please explain how “extensive use” will be defined in your report (see lines 100-101). I assume that socio-behavioral trends (whatever that means) will be explored and that an overview of them will emerge from the review. Similarly, please also define of “extensive use” on line 103.

The second question (lines 101-102) focuses on use of technological devices, while the third question (lines 120-103) focuses on use of the Internet. Is it the intention that these two questions have different merit?

 

The fourth question specifically anticipates a particular pattern of relationships between the variables, with anhedonia as the mediator. Please, consider reformulating the question to capture also other forms of relationships between the variables of interest (e.g., anhedonia in a moderating role).

 

Regarding intervention and com\parison (Internet addiction; lines 142-149 and then 150-158), will the review also include different research methods and measures of Internet addiction? I assume that different measurement methods may result in different composition of the groups being compared and thus may affect the results obtained.

Among the inclusion and exclusion criteria, I am missing a specific age definition; only a general identification (children, young adults) is given.

Are there any plans to update the review at this point?

Thank you for considering these comments and I wish you well in your future work.

Sincerely,

Author Response

We are deeply grateful to the Editor and the Reviewer for the time and attention devoted to our manuscript, and for their valuable comments, which we truly believe helped to improve it. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

Your abstract does not present any results. The abstract is a very important part of the research. It should have a short introduction with at least the general objective, a methodological part, a results part and the most important conclusions.

1.      Background

Dear Authors,

First of all, I would like to thank you for your work and effort. The subject is very interesting.

They consider that depression is a disease exclusive to industrialized countries. That is, there are inequalities of this disease between industrialized and non-industrialized countries.

I like the way they explain the importance of depression, the questions it still generates, the possible origin and the extreme difference between men and women.

I would like you to establish deeper relationships between the cognitive symptoms associated with depression and anhedonia.

The definition of anhedonia needs a reference author or authors. The most relevant ones.

The differentiation between consummatory anhedonia and anticipatory anhedonia is fine.

I would appreciate it if you could explain a little more about the role of dopamine as I think it is very important. I would like you to briefly explain the relationship between anhedonia, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and substance use disorders. This association is very interesting.

The impact of anhedonia at the social level is correctly explained, in addition to possible treatments. However, what other knowledge gaps exist about the disease.

What is new in your article compared to similar publications?

For example,

Dolan, S. C., Khindri, R., Franko, D. L., Thomas, J. J., Reilly, E. E., & Eddy, K. T. (2022). Anhedonia in eating disorders: A meta‐analysis and systematic review. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 55(2), 161-175.

Trøstheim, M., Eikemo, M., Meir, R., Hansen, I., Paul, E., Kroll, S. L., ... & Leknes, S. (2020). Assessment of anhedonia in adults with and without mental illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA network open, 3(8), e2013233-e2013233.

Primo, M. J., Fonseca-Rodrigues, D., Almeida, A., Teixeira, P. M., & Pinto-Ribeiro, F. (2023). Sucrose preference test: A systematic review of protocols for the assessment of anhedonia in rodents. European Neuropsychopharmacology, 77, 80-92.

1.1.  Study Objectives

Dear authors, there is a clear disconnect between the introduction and the overall objective of your research. They focus on the emotional effects of internet-related behavior in young people. You need to explain this objective much better in your introduction.

They introduce a key factor in their research questions that they do not explain in their introduction. Technology is a very important contextual factor that they should introduce initially. What recent studies relate technology, moods, emotions, depression and anhedonia. I suggest you redo your introduction with all this new data.

2. Methods

The methodological approach is fine. Using PRISMA in the right way is a guarantee.

2.1 Protocol registration and 2.2. Search strategy

Good job. The search criteria, protocols and so on are very rigorous.

a. PICOS

It is important to mention that they do not have a single research question, but four. They do have a single general objective

It is important to better specify the PICOS framework. The way they develop the research is confusing because they do not accurately define the objective and research questions. Clarity is a priority for their research.

In that section they talk about internet addiction, which is part of one of their research questions. Do they develop that part in their introduction?

Your general objective does not reflect all your research questions.

 

b. Query Search

This part is very well elaborated. The criteria are correct.

2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The criteria are well established

2.4. Quality Assessment and Risk of Bias Evaluation

The methodological rigor is very strong.

2.5. Data Extraction

The intervention of several researchers in this part is very important to guarantee a strong meticulousness.

2.6. Data Synthesis

The inclusion of JASP software is a wise move.

2.7. Limitations

They are well specified

3. Conclusion

The conclusion section is very weak. In this section they have the opportunity to develop not only the general objective of their research but also to answer their four research questions. In addition, it would be essential to contrast your findings with previous publications. Your article is very strong at the methodological level but weak in your results.

Finally, the PRISMA 2015 Checklist annex generates research value.

In conclusion, his work has a lot of potential. However, they focus their efforts on the methodological part. The introduction, the research objective, the four research questions should be connected. The conclusions should reflect the research effort as it is the priority part of your research. At the moment these parts are weak.

If you review the articles cited in the opening section, you will see that they include extensive discussions and conclusions. I encourage you to construct a discussion that includes practical implications along with future research. At the end, a concluding section that responds to the overall objective and research questions.

Author Response

We are deeply grateful to the Editor and the Reviewer for the time and attention devoted to our manuscript, and for their valuable comments, which we truly believe helped to improve it. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors responded to all my previous comments. I have no further suggestions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Nil

Author Response

Thank you for the valuable comments

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

First of all, congratulations to the authors. Delivering a major revision in ten days is a great effort.

In the background, the authors carefully define depression. They adequately relate depression and anhedonia (cognitive symptoms). The authors associate anhedonia with relevant authors. In addition, the authors associate anhedonia with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder adequately.

The authors specify that they prefer not to extend the introduction with other knowledge gaps associated with the disease. In fact, including other knowledge gaps associated with anhedonia does not necessarily have to dilute the specific focus of their objectives. Differentiating the objectives and content of an article from others is precisely what generates value. In addition, the reader will be able to establish a clear difference between one literature review and another.. However, I accept the response.

The authors improve the connection between their introduction and the objectives.

The methodological part is improved not only by my comments but also by those of the other reviewers. Good job on that aspect. From my point of view, methodology and rigor are the main strengths of this article.

The authors expand on the conclusions. They detail the different objectives much better, which generates value. In this way, the conclusions section is much completer and more appropriate for a research of this nature.

 

In general, the article has improved. Again, congratulations to the authors. Often the interaction between reviewer and author is not entirely constructive as neither the effort nor the positive changes are valued.

 

Author Response

Thank you for all the comments and efforts put into the review process.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf