Title: The effects of positive psychology and physical activity on depression, anxiety and stress
among students with premenstrual syndrome: A single blind, Randomized Controlled Trial
Version: 1 Date: 10 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
In the abstract, it is stated that this study is a "single-blind parallel clinical trial," but it also
mentions that "the participants and investigators were not blinded; however, the analysts were."
This setup does not conform to the traditional definition of a single-blind trial, where usually
either the participants or the investigators are blinded. Therefore, it would be more accurate to
describe the study as a "parallel clinical trial with blinded data analysis.". The design of the study
is crucial as it defines the framework of the work and introduces biases that the stated design
would not inherently possess.
In the introduction, while you present data from studies that have applied physical activity
to manage premenstrual syndrome symptoms, it would be beneficial to include some studies
related to positive psychology on this pathology, as it is the other intervention being proposed.
Additionally, it is recommended to clearly state the objective of the study at the end of the
introduction.
In the methods section, I have the same concern regarding the design terminology. Regarding
the participants, the inclusion criteria consider certain data about the menstrual cycle, but it is
not clear why these are relevant. It would be helpful to explain this.
In the results section, the first paragraph consisting of two lines should be removed. For the
data related to stress, anxiety, and depression, it would be most appropriate to reference the
table where these data are presented and highlight the most relevant findings. All the analyses
of differences should be better explained in the table, and it should be clear which data are
included (mean and standard deviation). Table 3, as currently presented, can be confusing. In
the paragraph regarding the Kruskal-Wallis test analysis, the variable "tension" is mentioned,
which has not been previously introduced. Please review this.
In the first paragraph of the discussion, it is unclear whether you are discussing the results
found in your study or those from other studies. It would be more appropriate to provide a brief
introduction about the findings of your study before comparing them with similar works. Please
review this. There is also incorrect references in the discussion text.
The discussion needs improvement as several studies are cited that provide insights into the
effects of the interventions, but the discussion lacks depth regarding how these interventions
interact, whether one is superior to the other, if the combination is more effective, and why there
might be longer-term benefits. A more thorough analysis is needed. Among the limitations, the
issue of blinding should be discussed, as well as the inability to determine precisely which aspect
of the intervention is most effective, given the multiple variables involved. Expanding on future
research directions would be beneficial.
The conclusion regarding healthcare professionals does not seem related to the rest of the text,
where different professionals are not discussed.
It is suggested to review the references for consistency in formatting and to correct any
indentation and font errors.
Finally, the tables are not very explanatory and should be revised for better clarity.