Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Collective efficacy measures for women and girls in low- and middle-
income countries: a systematic review
Version: 
0 
Date: 
11 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading
your report as an attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated
versions of manuscripts, graphs, supporting materials or other aspects of your
report which cannot be included in a text format.
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.
1. In this study, the heterogeneity in measures for collective efficacy of the
enrolled studies suggested the methodology in those biomedical or healthcare
context could be improved in the future researches. Thus, it is welcomed that the
authors conducted this study and addressed this issue. However, the author could
conduct an exhaustive summary of current literature relevant to a research
question. If there are similar researches enrolled, there might be a more solid
result. Please discuss it.
2. There have been studies to demonstrate the automation of systemic reviews,
as followings: 
(1)Tsafnat G, Glasziou P, Choong MK, Dunn A, Galgani F, Coiera E (July
2014). "Systematic review automation technologies". Systematic Reviews. 3 (1):
74. 
(2)Elliott JH, Turner T, Clavisi O, Thomas J, Higgins JP, Mavergames C, Gruen
RL (February 2014). "Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to
narrow the evidence-practice gap". PLOS Medicine. 11 (2): e1001603. 
(3)Tsafnat G, Glasziou P, Choong MK, Dunn A, Galgani F, Coiera E (July
2014). "Systematic review automation technologies". Systematic Reviews. 3 (1):
74. 
(4)Reddy SM, Patel S, Weyrich M, Fenton J, Viswanathan M (October 2020).
"Comparison of a traditional systematic review approach with review-of-reviews
and semi-automation as strategies to update the evidence". Systematic Reviews.
9 (1): 243. 
How to respond the heterogeneity of this study and to improve of the
practice/research of the health contexts in the future? Please discuss it.
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
No
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing
interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes