-->PONE-D-26-01897-->-->Lived experience of cognitive-communication changes after acquired brain injury: A qualitative evidence synthesis-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Behn,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 03 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

• A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

-->If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Firas H Kobeissy, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Kindly update the title of your manuscript to include the phrase 'systematic review' in it.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This study is funded by the NIHR Advanced Fellowship (NIHR302952). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: “All relevant data are within the manuscript and its supporting information files”

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: This manuscript presents a well-conducted and methodologically rigorous qualitative evidence synthesis that is clearly reported and grounded in appropriate frameworks (PRISMA, ENTREQ, CASP, and GRADE-CERQual). The search strategy is comprehensive, study selection and appraisal are transparent, and the analytic process is described in sufficient detail to support trustworthiness of the findings. The themes are coherent, well-supported by participant quotations, and the conclusions are appropriately aligned with the data. The inclusion of both people with ABI and familiar communication partners is a particular strength and adds important clinical relevance. I have no major concerns. Minor points the authors may wish to consider include clarifying the ethics statement to explicitly note that ethical approval was not required due to secondary analysis of published data, and briefly acknowledging the predominance of Australian studies and heterogeneity in how cognitive-communication disorder was identified as potential limitations affecting transferability. Overall, this is a high-quality synthesis that makes a valuable contribution to the literature and is suitable for publication with minor revision, if any.

Reviewer #2: This paper examines the lived experiences of cognitive-communication changes following acquired brain injury (ABI) among individuals and their family members. Please see the comments below:

1. I suggest revising the title to better reflect the stated objective, as the study focuses not only on individuals with ABI but also on their family members.

2. The introduction is concise and well written. However, adding more background on sociocultural and ecological factors would strengthen the context, as these factors may significantly influence cognitive-communication changes in this population.

3. In the Methods section, please provide additional detail regarding how studies in different languages were handled during analysis, if applicable. Clarification on the timeline and scope of the literature search would also be helpful.

4. It is somewhat unclear why the inclusion criteria limited the research designs primarily to qualitative and mixed-methods studies. Further justification for this decision would improve clarity.

Overall, this is an engaging and well-written paper, but some areas would benefit from additional clarification.

Reviewer #3: This manuscript presents a qualitative evidence synthesis exploring the lived experiences of cognitive-communication disorder (CCD) following acquired brain injury (ABI), from the perspectives of individuals with ABI and their familiar communication partners. The topic addresses an important and underexplored area within rehabilitation research and offers clinically meaningful insight into the psychosocial and relational impact of CCD. Overall, the manuscript is clearly structured, methodologically sound, and thoughtfully interpreted. The conclusions are well aligned with the findings and are not overstated.

1. Title and Abstract

The title accurately reflects the study design and scope. The abstract is clear, balanced, and appropriately summarizes the methods and findings without overstating conclusions. The aims, approach, and thematic findings are presented concisely and accurately.

2. Introduction

The introduction effectively identifies the knowledge gap related to cognitive-communication changes and clearly justifies the need for deeper understanding of lived experiences. The study aim is explicitly stated and logically follows from the background literature.

3. Methods

The study design is appropriate for the research question. The use of thematic synthesis allows meaningful exploration of participant experience across studies.

The search strategy is transparent, with databases and search terms clearly described. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are well defined.

The use of GRADE-CERQual to assess confidence in qualitative findings strengthens methodological rigor. The description of data extraction and synthesis is clear and reproducible.

4. Results

Results are presented in a logical and systematic manner. The characteristics table of included studies is well organized and non-redundant.

Thematic synthesis is applied appropriately, and the identification of two major themes and eight subthemes appears well supported by the included studies.

5. Discussion

The discussion aligns closely with the findings and appropriately contextualizes them within the broader literature. Clinical implications are thoughtfully considered. Limitations are acknowledged, and directions for future research are clearly articulated.

6. References

The manuscript includes an extensive and up-to-date reference list. Citations appropriately support the claims made throughout the manuscript.

Recommendation

Accept

The manuscript is methodologically sound and contributes meaningful insight into cognitive-communication changes following ABI.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes: Yazan Adam Bouchi

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Samed Obeng, MD

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

-->

Lived experience of cognitive-communication changes for people with acquired brain injury and familiar communication partners: A qualitative evidence synthesis

PONE-D-26-01897R1

Dear Dr. Behn,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Firas H Kobeissy, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: