Next Article in Journal
Long-Term Effect of a Single Dose of Caffeine on Sleep, the Sleep EEG and Neuronal Activity in the Peduncular Part of the Lateral Hypothalamus under Constant Dark Conditions
Previous Article in Journal
Combining Wake-Up-Back-to-Bed with Cognitive Induction Techniques: Does Earlier Sleep Interruption Reduce Lucid Dream Induction Rate?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Clocks & Sleep
Volume 4
Issue 2
10.3390/clockssleep4020022
Review Report
clockssleep-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Review
Peer-Review Record

Socioeconomic Position and Excessive Daytime Sleepiness: A Systematic Review of Social Epidemiological Studies

Clocks & Sleep 2022, 4(2), 240-259; https://doi.org/10.3390/clockssleep4020022
by Imene Bendaoud 1,2,* and Faustin Armel Etindele Sosso 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Clocks & Sleep 2022, 4(2), 240-259; https://doi.org/10.3390/clockssleep4020022
Submission received: 22 November 2021 / Revised: 1 April 2022 / Accepted: 5 May 2022 / Published: 16 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Human Basic Research & Neuroimaging)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

interesting work although most of the research is already known

My objection is that they have the discussion part before the methods. They  should change that! The English language is ok Their methods are basic for a systematic review They have not discovered Mars but I think it is a review on how socioeconomic factors influence sleep which is useful for future research as they wrote in their article

Author Response

We would like to thank reviewer 1 for the useful comments and their assessment of our review.

We have carefully considered the comments and tried our best to address them accordingly. 

Reviewer 2 Report

-More details should be added regarding the novelty and the significance of this meta-analysis. -It should be specified whether MeSH terms were used during literature search. -Any date or language restriction should be reported. -The PICOS of the meta-analysis should be clearly reported. -More details about the GRADE evaluation should be provided in the Methods section.
-Please also include timeline of the literature search in the method section of the abstract.
-This systematic reviews has not been registered
- Who are “two independent investigators”?
-It will be better to show kappa for the selection and data extraction. Please show the data of kappa of agreement during the systematic searches. How disagreements were solved during the systematic search among two independent reviewers?

Author Response

More details should be added regarding the novelty and the significance of this meta-analysis. -It should be specified whether MeSH terms were used during literature search. -Any date or language restriction should be reported. -The PICOS of the meta-analysis should be clearly reported. -More details about the GRADE evaluation should be provided in the Methods section.

  • We would like to thank reviewer 2 for their comments and suggestions. This is a systematic review, not a meta-analysis, therefore PICOS as well as GRADE were not required. The rest of the methods were updated according to your suggestions.

-Please also include timeline of the literature search in the method section of the abstract. 

  • We thank you for the reminder, the abstract has been changed accordingly.

-This systematic reviews has not been registered

  • We appreciate the comment on the registration, however there are many good systematic reviews that have not been registered prior to peer review. It is recommended, but not mandatory.

- Who are “two independent investigators”?

  • The two independent investigators are other researchers working in two different universities specializing in quantitative methodology. 

-It will be better to show kappa for the selection and data extraction. Please show the data of kappa of agreement during the systematic searches. How disagreements were solved during the systematic search among two independent reviewers?

  • We thank you for your suggestions. We used the PRISMA protocol as mentioned in methods. We agree that kappa are good practice, but they are not a part of the PRISMA checklist.  Disagreements between the investigators were resolved by discussion to reach a consensus.
Back to TopTop