EEG in Neurorehabilitation: A Bibliometric Analysis and Content Review
, Ioannis Liampas 1,2, Markos Sgantzos 1,2, Vasileios Siokas 1,2 and Alexandros G. Brotis 3,*
Todd Richards
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors I read with interest your MS on the applications of the EEG in neurorehabilitation. I think this is a remarkable contribution to the literature on the filed but I have some minor comments that I hope could be helpful to improve its quality.
TITLE:
In my opinion the title does not reflect the study's aim that are to "to identify the knowledge base through highly influential studies” and “to examine the relevant research front, focusing on active authors, thematic hotspots, and research trends “.
ABSTRACT:
The description of the considered outcomes could be improved.
METHODS:
I have some concerns on the choice of including only one database for this review. It seems that avoiding duplicates was one reason for that, but there are several ways to exclude duplicates after multiple dataset revisions. I suggest the author make an effort to explain better this choice to the reader.
RESULTS:
Line 146 is not clear: what do author mean with "874 records from 420 sources"?
It is not clear to me why performing a review only on the most-cited articles. For instance, the citation count is influenced by years since publication and this criterium could bias the selection towards the “oldest” papers.
DISCUSSION:
Line 314-315: I would refer to some fitting details for this statement.
Figure 3 "tend topics" could be improved
Author Response
Dec 13/2022
Dear Editor,
We were pleased to hear that the Cureus journal is interested in a revised version of our manuscript.
Manuscript ID: neurolint-2070377
Type of manuscript: Review
Title: EEG in neurorehabilitation can have several uses other than BCI:
biomarkers to predict/monitor recovery
We are grateful to the editor and reviewers for their helpful suggestions and comments. All comments have been addressed in the revised version.
In more detail:
Reviewer Comments
Reviewer 1
Dear Authors I read with interest your MS on the applications of the EEG in neurorehabilitation. I think this is a remarkable contribution to the literature on the filed but I have some minor comments that I hope could be helpful to improve its quality.
- TITLE:In my opinion the title does not reflect the study's aim that are to "to identify the knowledge base through highly influential studies” and “to examine the relevant research front, focusing on active authors, thematic hotspots, and research trends “.
Author’s answer: Thank you for your valuable comments. The title was changed to : EEG in Neurorehabilitation: A Bibliometric Analysis and Content Review.
- ABSTRACT:The description of the considered outcomes could be improved.
Author’s answer: Thank you for your comment. The considered outcomes in the abstract were re-written in a more easy to read manner.
- METHODS:I have some concerns on the choice of including only one database for this review. It seems that avoiding duplicates was one reason for that, but there are several ways to exclude duplicates after multiple dataset revisions. I suggest the author make an effort to explain better this choice to the reader.
Author’s answer: Thank you for you comment. As a matter of fact, the utilized software, Bibliometrix, is capable of analyzing the meta-data from a single database. A relevant statemtn was added in the limitations section.
- RESULTS:Line 146 is not clear: what do author mean with "874 records from 420 sources"?
Author’s answer: Thank you rfor your comment. The sentence was rephrased as follows: As a matter of fact, the utilized software, Bibliometrix, is capable of analyzing the meta-data from a single database.
- It is not clear to me why performing a review only on the most-cited articles. For instance, the citation count is influenced by years since publication and this criterium could bias the selection towards the “oldest” papers.
Author’s answer: Thank your for your comment. We preferred the number of citations as a criterion in ranking our articles among several other, including the date of publication and the h-index, since we believe that it is the most appropriate indicator of the scientific impact of an article in the field. Thus, we reviewed the pertinent literature based on the most influential contributions. An appropriate statement was added in the discussion.
- DISCUSSION:
Line 314-315: I would refer to some fitting details for this statement.
Author’s answer: Thank you for your comment. The following statement was added: Indeed, over the past decades, rehabilitation intended to teach the patients tips and tricks on how to eat dress, and move about independently. Nowadays, rehabilitation aims to improve the function of the paralyzed extremity by activating dormant or hibernating cerebral circuits to assist in walking and execution the activities of daily living.
- Figure 3 "tend topics" could be improved
Author’s answer:Thank your comment. Appropriate changes were done.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The goal of this study to review the “role of EEG in neurorehabilitation” is an extremely important but there are many missing details.
In the section labeled 5.1. Overview of our findings, it states that “Our current manuscript presents a detailed analysis of the top-cited articles on the use of EEG in neurorehabilitation. It can help clinicians and researchers understand the existing knowledge base, comprehend the current research front, and get acquainted with the underlying social/scientific networks.” To accomplish this statement, this reviewer recommends that the authors use this cited manuscript below as an example to include figures, methods, example EEG signal figures, example EEG equipment figures so that much more detail can be included.
See this manuscript as an example on what to include in this manuscript
Nicolas-Alonso LF, Gomez-Gil J. Brain Computer Interfaces, a Review. Sensors 2012,12,1211–79.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
The goal of this study to review the “role of EEG in neurorehabilitation” is an extremely important but there are many missing details.
In the section labeled 5.1. Overview of our findings, it states that “Our current manuscript presents a detailed analysis of the top-cited articles on the use of EEG in neurorehabilitation. It can help clinicians and researchers understand the existing knowledge base, comprehend the current research front, and get acquainted with the underlying social/scientific networks.” To accomplish this statement, this reviewer recommends that the authors use this cited manuscript below as an example to include figures, methods, example EEG signal figures, example EEG equipment figures so that much more detail can be included.
See this manuscript as an example on what to include in this manuscript
Nicolas-Alonso LF, Gomez-Gil J. Brain Computer Interfaces, a Review. Sensors 2012,12,1211–79.
Author’s answer: Thank you for your valuable comment. The excellent article mentioned above was stated in our study (Reference #3). It constitutes a comprehensive and an in depth review on BCI. Our manuscript does not aim to provide an update on the topic under question. On the contrary, it is based on bibliometric meta-data from Scopus on BCI in neurorehabilitation. For this reason we clarified our aim in the title and apologize for the inconvenience.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have responded to my previous concerns and have changed the title and made clarifications on the aims on manuscript.
