Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Internet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy for premenstrual syndrome: a
randomized controlled trial
Version: 
1 
Date: 
18 Nov 2021
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a
testable research question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear
objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols)
appropriate for the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor
to allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results
reasonable and not overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work
technically sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically
sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: Introduction: 
Line 69: "it is one of the most troublesome…" this is a claim that I don't see
clearly cited. Citation #11 doesn't seem to address it...I would suggest either
leaving this statement out, finding a citation that supports the claim that it is
among most common medical complaints, aor changing the statement from
claim to commentary. 
Line 79-80: the setup of this sentence suggests that the Germany study results
could not be generalized to the current study sample, which is valid---I was
expecting, then, the final sentence to include some specific mention of the
sample and setting in which the study is conducted (female university students in
Iran). This will help finish the thought contrasting the Germany study from the
current question. 
Methods: 
The methods appear complete, though I think that at times the detailed
information in the "recruitment and randomization" section is a bit redundant
with the data collection tools section, particularly around the specifics of each of
the measures used. I wonder if introducing the measurement tools and then
describing the step-by-step procedure would lead to more streamlined/less
redundant reporting. However, it is not a major issue for revision. 
Results: 
I think that as each hypothesis is introduced, it would be useful to remind the
reader in the written text what analysis is being done. Also, I appreciate
confidence intervals being reported, but wonder if effect sizes would also be
helpful to report in the event the study is included for meta-analyses in future? I
defer to the convention of the journal being submitted to on this---but I was
expecting an effect size to go with the significance test to be put in context. 
Discussion: 
No suggestions.
my overall impression of the study is positive, as the authors lay out a
straightforward trial. The authors have done a good job making a concise case
for the study in the introduction, and have provided ample information about the
sample and recruitment process for readers to evaluate the study methods. The
only suggestions I have are small additions to each section that will bring some
clarity or accuracy to each component.
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.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square.
Reviewers with declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for
these reviews. This reviewer has agreed to publication of their comments online
under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to Research Square
and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within a specified
timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer
recommendation.
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