This article is a systematic review on patient-mediated interventions in the hospital. There is a need to add some details regarding the review method as follows:
By Medline, did you mean that PubMed has also been covered during the search?
Did your search encompassed the grey literature? Why not?
Describe how the search key terms were retrieved and used.
Please be precise with the review duration as the date of studies’ inclusion.
The dynamic of task assignment for the search in the review team should be clearly described.
What you mentioned under data abstraction, is only the extraction of data from studies. Therefore, the subheading should be changed as data abstraction.
It could be more acceptable if you would use specialised evaluation tools for quality and risk of bias appraisals on selected articles, as the related tools can be easily found on the internet. The use of MMAT for appraising various types of studies using a few criteria in that tool is problematic. I do suggest to acknowledge it as the limitation of your review.
Page 6, be precise on countries. What does it mean by ‘Asia’?
The results of quality appraisals, do not match the related methodologic approach in the methods section. You have given score or percentage. Please remove the discrepancy.
In the conclusion, provide practical implications of your findings for education, policy making, practice, research etc.
Figure related to spider diagram, but I think your description on how it was drawn is not quite enough for readers.

Nothing more.