Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim of the study refers to present a systematic review and meta-analysis, but the title just mentions a systematic review. Consider introducing meta-analysis in the title.

Confirm if all performed statistic tests were mentioned in Data Analysis chapter, and according to results order presentation.

Correct space in line 331.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for your comments and suggestions.

We have added the word "meta-analysis in the title of the manuscript, as you suggested.

I Confirm that all performed statistic tests have been mentioned in Data Analysis chapter, and according to results we ordered their presentation.

We have orrected the space in line 331.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, I have no major concerns about the content of the paper. Upon reviewing the submitted content, however, I observed that the similarity index is near the 20% mark.

This level of similarity prompts us to take a closer look to ensure the integrity and originality of your work. A similarity rate at or below this percentage is not inherently problematic but does require a detailed examination to confirm that all sources are properly cited and that the work does not overly rely on any single source or replicate existing content without appropriate attribution. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer thank you for your comments.

About the similarity index, as you mentioned is nearly 20%, which is not yet problematic, because it is much lower the problemtaic 35%. Nevertheless, we have checked again with other sources on the possible replication of exixting content, but we do confirm that all sources are properly cited and that the work is original in its content.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript focuses on the results of clinical trials adopting a mindful eating approach towards cardiometabolic risk factors partly related to dysfunctional eating behavior. The manuscript is based on a systematic review and meta-analysis. This manuscript examines an important issue and deals well with this. It offers a robust theoretical frame and a well-organized and convincing discussion of the findings.

1. Introduction: The theoretical part is well developed. A clear stating and focusing of the argument is provided.

2. Methods: Methods are appropriate and the fit between theoretical discussion and methodology is well formulated according to the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews on Intervention and the PRISMA guidelines on three electronic databases: MEDLINE/Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials (CENTRAL).

3. Results: Results are linked suitably to the other sections of the article.

4. Discussion: A well-organized and compelling discussion section is provided as well.

5. Strengths and Limitations: This is a very interesting article where implications are well explained.

6. Conclusions: The conclusions are linked to the hypothesis and background characteristics incorporated into the results.

7. Language: The quality of communication is good.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer thank you very much for your comments.

We do very much appreciate that our paper has found your interest and appreciation