Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty,
Anxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination
Version: 2 Date: 23 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
I am unsure if this is a first submission or revision; the files included are confusing.
Major Concerns:
1. Study Design and Generalizability: The manuscript employs a retrospective cohort design,
which inherently limits the ability to draw causal conclusions. The authors should consider
discussing these limitations in greater depth and addressing how this design impacts the strength
of their findings. The lack of randomization may introduce selection bias.
2. Sample Limitations: The study focuses on patients from a single hospital, limiting
generalizability. The authors should discuss how these results might differ in a more diverse,
multi-site sample.
3. Statistical Analysis: The description of the statistical analysis is relatively brief. The authors
should provide more details regarding the statistical tests employed and justify their choices.
Specifically, mentioning controlling for confounding variables would help address concerns
related to the study's observational nature.
4. Intervention Details: More information is needed on the content and development of the
simulated animated video. Who created the content, and how was its effectiveness initially
validated? This will help assess the intervention’s quality and reproducibility.
5. Outcome Reporting: The results section reports statistically significant findings but needs a
more practical interpretation. The authors should discuss the clinical significance of the observed
differences in MUIS, HAM, and PSQI scores. For instance, is reducing anxiety or uncertainty
meaningful enough to influence procedural outcomes or patient compliance?
Minor Issues:
1. Language and Grammar: Occasional grammatical inconsistencies may hinder clarity.
Consider a thorough language edit to improve readability.
2. Ethical Considerations: The manuscript states that informed consent was waived due to the
use of de-identified data. While this complies with ethical standards, a stronger justification for
the waiver would enhance transparency, particularly regarding patient autonomy.
Recommendations for Authors:
a) Address the study design's limitations and clearly articulate how they affect the interpretation
of the results.
b) Expand on the statistical analysis methods and ensure sufficient detail is given about the tools
and adjustments used.
c) Provide additional information on the animated video intervention's development, validation,
and content.
d) Consider reformatting some sections for clarity and incorporating visual aids.
Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty,
Anxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination
Version: 2 Date: 23 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
I am unsure if this is a first submission or revision; the files included are confusing.
Major Concerns:
1. Study Design and Generalizability: The manuscript employs a retrospective cohort design,
which inherently limits the ability to draw causal conclusions. The authors should consider
discussing these limitations in greater depth and addressing how this design impacts the strength
of their findings. The lack of randomization may introduce selection bias.
2. Sample Limitations: The study focuses on patients from a single hospital, limiting
generalizability. The authors should discuss how these results might differ in a more diverse,
multi-site sample.
3. Statistical Analysis: The description of the statistical analysis is relatively brief. The authors
should provide more details regarding the statistical tests employed and justify their choices.
Specifically, mentioning controlling for confounding variables would help address concerns
related to the study's observational nature.
4. Intervention Details: More information is needed on the content and development of the
simulated animated video. Who created the content, and how was its effectiveness initially
validated? This will help assess the intervention’s quality and reproducibility.
5. Outcome Reporting: The results section reports statistically significant findings but needs a
more practical interpretation. The authors should discuss the clinical significance of the observed
differences in MUIS, HAM, and PSQI scores. For instance, is reducing anxiety or uncertainty
meaningful enough to influence procedural outcomes or patient compliance?
Minor Issues:
1. Language and Grammar: Occasional grammatical inconsistencies may hinder clarity.
Consider a thorough language edit to improve readability.
2. Ethical Considerations: The manuscript states that informed consent was waived due to the
use of de-identified data. While this complies with ethical standards, a stronger justification for
the waiver would enhance transparency, particularly regarding patient autonomy.
Recommendations for Authors:
a) Address the study design's limitations and clearly articulate how they affect the interpretation
of the results.
b) Expand on the statistical analysis methods and ensure sufficient detail is given about the tools
and adjustments used.
c) Provide additional information on the animated video intervention's development, validation,
and content.
d) Consider reformatting some sections for clarity and incorporating visual aids.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty,
Anxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination
Version: 2 Date: 23 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
I am unsure if this is a first submission or revision; the files included are confusing.
Major Concerns:
1. Study Design and Generalizability: The manuscript employs a retrospective cohort design,
which inherently limits the ability to draw causal conclusions. The authors should consider
discussing these limitations in greater depth and addressing how this design impacts the strength
of their findings. The lack of randomization may introduce selection bias.
2. Sample Limitations: The study focuses on patients from a single hospital, limiting
generalizability. The authors should discuss how these results might differ in a more diverse,
multi-site sample.
3. Statistical Analysis: The description of the statistical analysis is relatively brief. The authors
should provide more details regarding the statistical tests employed and justify their choices.
Specifically, mentioning controlling for confounding variables would help address concerns
related to the study's observational nature.
4. Intervention Details: More information is needed on the content and development of the
simulated animated video. Who created the content, and how was its effectiveness initially
validated? This will help assess the intervention’s quality and reproducibility.
5. Outcome Reporting: The results section reports statistically significant findings but needs a
more practical interpretation. The authors should discuss the clinical significance of the observed
differences in MUIS, HAM, and PSQI scores. For instance, is reducing anxiety or uncertainty
meaningful enough to influence procedural outcomes or patient compliance?
Minor Issues:
1. Language and Grammar: Occasional grammatical inconsistencies may hinder clarity.
Consider a thorough language edit to improve readability.
2. Ethical Considerations: The manuscript states that informed consent was waived due to the
use of de-identified data. While this complies with ethical standards, a stronger justification for
the waiver would enhance transparency, particularly regarding patient autonomy.
Recommendations for Authors:
a) Address the study design's limitations and clearly articulate how they affect the interpretation
of the results.
b) Expand on the statistical analysis methods and ensure sufficient detail is given about the tools
and adjustments used.
c) Provide additional information on the animated video intervention's development, validation,
and content.
d) Consider reformatting some sections for clarity and incorporating visual aids.
assistant