Virtual Reality in the Treatment of Patients with Overweight and Obesity: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract

The findings as stated in the abstract should be quantified.

Introduction

"This study" were used 3times successfully. The grammar could be reframed without losing its meaning.

There is no mention of specific objectives - this would inform the reader how the authors intend to achieve the aim of the study. 

This study is unique in that it covers a "few" of the most recent ..... why limit the study to a few?? Reconsider this statement. It would be appropriate to mention/include PRISMA as part of your specific objectives. 

 

Materials and Method

the reasons for selecting PubMed, Medline, Scopus and Web of Science appears vague. 

 

 

Author Response

Virtual Reality in the Treatment of Patients with Overweight and Obesity: A Systematic Review

 

I would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions which enabled me to revise and improve the manuscript. In the revised version, we considered the comments to respond to all suggestions from the editor and reviewers. Details about the modifications are in the following table.

 

#	Reviwer1 comments	Authors Comment	Response
1	Abstract: The findings as stated in the abstract should be quantified.		The authors rewrote the abstract and quantified some findings
2	"This study" were used 3times successfully. The grammar could be reframed without losing its meaning.		This section is revised and improved.
3	There is no mention of specific objectives		The objective is highlighted.
4	This study is unique in that it covers a "few" of the most recent ..... why limit the study to a few??		This section is revised and improved.
5	the reasons for selecting PubMed, Medline, Scopus and Web of Science appears vague.		The justification is added.
2	The bibliographic part seems a little reduced compared to a review paper		This part is enhanced with more references.
3	The quality of the figures.		The figures were reproduced and improved.
4	Separate discussion and conclusion subsections.		The two parts are separated now.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank the authors for this interesting paper, also the editors for inviting me to review it.

The introduction provides key definitions and a context for the study. Arguments are made supporting the value and importance of this work. 

PRISMA is a well-known and popular tool for conducting systematic literature reviews, and is a good reliable approach for this work. The recent age of the articles adds strength and value to this work, however the sample selection is a bit small at 24 papers.

Table 1 is useful for the reader to get an idea of the papers reviewed at a glance. The study design field could be further summarised to aid readability. It would be good to add some key themes from the analysis. The additional space saved from Table 1 could provide room for deeper analysis, conclusions and recommendations.

Author Response

Virtual Reality in the Treatment of Patients with Overweight and Obesity: A Systematic Review

 

I would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions which enabled me to revise and improve the manuscript. In the revised version, we considered the comments to respond to all suggestions from the editor and reviewers. Details about the modifications are in the following table.

 

#	Reviewer 2 comments	Authors Comment	Response
1	The sample selection is a bit small at 24 papers.	Following the methodology and inclusion/ exclusion criteria lead to this number of studies. The previews review was in 2013 and lead to 6 studies.
2	The study design field could be further summarized.		The study design field has been summarized and improved
3	Deeper analysis, conclusions and recommendations.		All are added to the discussion part.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

 A study of the literature on virtual reality for the treatment of obese or overweight people was conducted. The authors created a keyword list based on two areas: virtual reality and obesity and searched PubMed, Medline, Scopus and Web of Science databases for related publications from 2000 to 2022 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). They concluded that the use of virtual reality for self-monitoring of diet, physical activity and/or weight is effective for weight loss. The paper is well written and organized. The analysis can be done better and the bibliographic part seems to me a little reduced compared to a review paper. The quality of the figures must be improved. In my view, It s preferable to separate discussion and conclusion subsections.

Author Response

Virtual Reality in the Treatment of Patients with Overweight and Obesity: A Systematic Review

 

I would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions which enabled me to revise and improve the manuscript. In the revised version, we considered the comments to respond to all suggestions from the editor and reviewers. Details about the modifications are in the following table.

 

#	Reviewer 3 comments	Authors Comment	Response
1	The analysis can be done better.		The analysis part is revised and improved.
2	The bibliographic part seems a little reduced compared to a review paper		This part is enhanced with more references.
3	The quality of the figures.		The figures were reproduced and improved.
4	Separate discussion and conclusion subsections.		The two parts are sepaerated now.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Τhe Abstract language  and content could be better processed so as to present in a robust manner the scope of the review as well as the research processes conducted. Regarding the Introduction section my suggestion would be to condense content respective with important key concepts and highlight the importance of VR and technology use- this section could be revised and shortened. The information on Second Life and Pocemon Go do not seem relevant to the scope of the paper. In the Introduction section it is important to define research questions addressed with the specific study. The authors do not justify the selection of PRISMA for their study- this section needs revision: more information  is needed regarding PRISMA and the aims of the study supported by it. The Data Collection processes description needs to be more specific , commenting on the scientific impact, the number of sources used etc. The section inclusion/exclusion criteria could be commented further in terms of justifying important choices. Reference and scientific justification is needed in  the use of Newcastle–Ottawa 167 Quality Assessment Scale. The information on Study Design column in Table 2 could be revised so as to be more easy to follow by the reader, in a more condensed and to the point manner. The Discussion section needs to be more extended so as to provide commentary on reported data- it is quite short in the present version of the paper.

Author Response

Virtual Reality in the Treatment of Patients with Overweight and Obesity: A Systematic Review

 

I would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions which enabled me to revise and improve the manuscript. In the revised version, we considered the comments to respond to all suggestions from the editor and reviewers. Details about the modifications are in the following table.

 

#	Reviewer 4 comments	Authors Comment	Response
1	Τhe abstract language and content could be better processed.		The authors rewrote the abstract.
2	Highlight the importance of VR and technology		The authors add section of the importance of VR.
3	Second Life and Pocemon Go do not seem relevant		They are removed
4	Justify the selection of PRISMA		The justification is added
5	The Data Collection processes description needs to be more specific		This part is revised and improved
6	The section inclusion/exclusion criteria could be commented further in terms of justifying important choices		This part is revised and improved
7	Reference and scientific justification is needed in  the use of Newcastle–Ottawa 167 Quality Assessment Scale		References and justification are added
8	The information on Study Design column in Table 2 could be revised		This column is revised, summarized and rewritten
9	Discussion section		This section is revised and improved

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The Abstract section presents in a clear manner the scope and aim of the review. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Introduction section could be merged in one. Presentation of PRISMA needs further elaboration so as to present important actions, processes and how do these seem to relate with the conducted survey- since this is a methodological choice , it needs to be justified. Reference on the Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale is needed. In the Study Design column information is hard to follow and not all sections have been condensed. The use of key words at this point could prove helpful. The Conclusion section could be a little bit more elaborated , summarizing important content.

Author Response

I would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions which enabled me to revise and improve the manuscript. In the revised version, we considered the comments to respond to all suggestions from the editor and reviewers. Details about the modifications are in the attached table.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx