User:22ilovecats22/Post-chemotherapy cognitive impairment/Loyola2024 Peer Review

Peer Review:

Congratulations! Your I found your contribution highly valuable: it is relevant to the article topic, neutral, and interesting. Although it was hard to identify issues, I have identified a few areas of improvement in organization, redundancy, and sources. I've also provided a few helpful suggestions.


 * Areas of Improvement
 * Organization: The beginning of the treatment section states that there are "hypothesized treatment options" and the beginning of your new section begins with "there are other proposed forms" which is somewhat confusing phrasing. Does this phrasing imply that these treatments are equally as theoretical or even less so? Are the treatments following the new section of a different "form" or are they just different treatments? Is there a reason, in terms of content, why you created a new paragraph in the first place rather than adding onto the current on? If not, I would suggest eliminating the space between these sections and removing the phrase "other proposed forms" so that there is no implied distinction between these sections. An alternative phrase such as "additional treatments" could be used.
 * Redundancy: In the new section that you contributed, you introduce CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) as an additional treatment option. However, it had already been introduced during the first sentence of the treatment section. By introducing it again in your new section you've accidentally created a redundancy in the information provided and individuals not familiar with the lingo might confuse "CBT" and "Cognitive Behavioral Therapy" to be two distinct treatments.
 * Sources: You only use one source in your contribution and there aren't many in this section to begin with. Consider bolstering this section by adding additional relevant sources about the information present.
 * Suggestions
 * To improve your organization of information and reduce redundancies you could choose to lump treatment options together in a way that contributes contextual meaning. For example, you could put the pharmacological options together, followed by a new section with the psychosocial interventions (e.g. CBT), and lastly exercise. Alternatively, you could create a bulleted list, giving each unique treatment its own line.
 * I found a source you might find helpful: Non-pharmacological interventions for cognitive impairment in women with breast cancer post-chemotherapy: A systematic review (Floyd et. al., 2021)

The below paragraph was the only contribution I could identify, I have placed it here for my reference:

There are other proposed forms of managing PCCI symptoms, one being physical activity. Studies have shown that when compared with control groups, breast cancer patients with a diagnosis within the last two years who were apart of the exercise trial group experienced improved processing speed and reduction in cognitive symptoms. Another recommended management method is engagement in cognitive behavioral therapy, known as CBT. Patients who engage in CBT to treat CRCI routinely report improved symptoms, and studies have shown self-reported improvement of depression, anxiety, fatigue and cognitive complaints. While these forms of management for PCCI symptoms show subjective improvements, they are less supported in regards to objective assessment and still require further testing.

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)