Write a comment

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Partly

The introduction partly states the study aim but does not explicitly state the specific objectives or research question(s).

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat inappropriate

The authors do not clearly state the type of the review that was done; even this lacks in the study title. Yet, it is the review that defines the aim/objective(s), scope, and methodology. Therefore, there's limited methodological transparency.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Somewhat unsupported

The results section is not explicit. Therefore, it is difficult for the readers to know where the conclusions are coming from. Although the authors seem to present rich scientific data on the topic, it is imperative that they provide a clear results section describing the articles that were included and the data of interest therein.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Somewhat inappropriate or unclear

Some figures, such as the first one, are not captioned. The lack of a designated results section makes it difficult for the reader to know which gap the data addresses. For example, the reader cannot is left to assume that table 1 presents part of the review findings, yet it does not indicate the papers from which the presented data was obtained.

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Neither clearly nor unclearly

The lack of clarity on the type of review that was done and study objectives or research question(s) makes it difficult to judge the quality of the discussion.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Moderately likely

The preprint presents credible medical scientific information that could contribute to the advancement of knowledge. However, it is not well conceptualized, synthesized and presented.

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

No, it needs a major revision

Please refer to the previous comments.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The authors declare that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.