Preventive Pathways for Healthy Ageing: A Systematic Literature Review
, Niccolò Cherasco 1, Andrea Conti 1,2,*, Irlanda Pighini 1, Francesco Barone-Adesi 1 and Massimiliano Panella 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease, see the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
English is good. Some little parts could be however improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for the insightful comments and suggestions provided. We improved the manuscript according to all the Reviewers' comments. Please see attached our response to you comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a very good systematic review. The following are my kind and subtle suggestions for reference.
1. In line 97, the selection criteria had a “NOT (laboratory).” Was it a typo? If not, it conflicts with Table 1 about the study design for “Experimental.”
2. In lines 337-338, a reference seemed missed. “This trend was observed in studies conducted in low middle income countries [ref ].”
3. For 3.3. Preventive pathway characteristics, including 3.3.1-3.3.4 sections, and 3.4. section, it would be more readable to compare the 14 studies with a new Table. “The Appendix A” seemed too complicated. Another new and brief table would make the manuscript cited many more times in the future.
4. After the discussion section, could it be possible for the authors to try to offer a more concrete preventive program based on your findings in any way, table, figure, or the like? It will be easier to make a similar one for future practitioners.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for the insightful comments and suggestions provided. We improved the manuscript according to all the Reviewers' comments. Please see attached our response to you comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCompliments to the Authors for the revised paper. Please, see the attachment for minor final adjustments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
English language is good. Some little parts could be however improved
Author Response
Review Report Manuscript ID: geriatrics-3394831-v2
The Authors did a great work for addressing the suggested revisions. The paper is greatly improved, clarified and integrated with useful and important infos. Only some little/minor issues/inaccuracies are still present and easy to manage.
Authors
We would like to thank the reviewer for appreciating our work. We revised the text to address the minor issues.
Materials and Methods.
- Par. 2.3. Data extraction:
o Line 116: “…. titles and abstract screening was performed with Microsoft Excel…”. The red part seems missing in the sentence of the Authors.
Authors
We revised it.
Par. 2.4. Risk of bias assessment:
- Line 129: “…. applied the Joanna Briggs Institute JBI…”. I would suggest to put in brackets (JBI).
Authors
We revised it.
Results.
- Par. 3.2. Risk of bias results.
o Line 180: “Both the qualitative studies [23,26] obtained a medium quality rating”. In table 3, item n. 26 has a high quality (not medium).
Authors
We revised the text.
“The qualitative study performed by Green et al.[23] obtained medium quality quality rating due to the lack of clarity regarding the researcher’s cultural or theoretical positioning while the other qualitative study [26] was scored as high”
- Par. 3.3. Preventive pathway characteristics.
o Line 216: “All the 12 studies [18–22,24,25,27–30] …”. Records in brackets are 11 and not 12, as stated.
Authors
We apologize for the mistake, we updated the reference.
[18-25, 27-30]
Supplementary Materials: line 420, regarding PRISMA checklist, I see only a table in the Supplementary pdf (1.5, i.e., S5). Maybe the table at p. 4 is S6.
Authors
We apologize for the mistakes, we revised the number.
Minor issues. For embedded citations in the text with pagination, please, add the page numbers, e.g.; line 37:
[3] (p......); line 45: [4] (p……).
Authors
We understand your concern however we follow the guideline of the journal to manage citation within the text. If some changes are required the editorial board will tell us to modify the reference before the visual version of the work.
