The issues are interesting but not sufficiently supported
(a) the following statement: Among the many potential hazards found across 50 different healthcare settings, missed care stands out as a critical but insufficiently studied 51 aspect (Alanazi et al., 2023) does not motivate the study. Perception, even with empirical data, is instead a large production of studies in this area.
(b) the major problem of this study is that the quality of care is correlated with missed care but there is no evidence of this relationship, which can be understood in the introduction.
(c) the following source is very dated: more recent studies exist. ('Moreover, missed care can induce psychological stress on nurses who experience remorse and distress 70 over providing subpar care (Kalisch et al., 2009).'
(d) as regards the causes, the most important review in the field is not cited (Chiappinotto et al., 2022) while it is indicated (Hammad et al., 2021).
(e) Navone's works on the instruments currently used to measure the phenomenon and on the spicometric properties are not cited (Navone et al.). In fact, the background and introduction part is weak, it does not justify the gap and does not sufficiently motivate the study.
(f) the concept of LC is not clear and it is not clear in the research process which settings were considered as they are very different settings.
(g) It misses the point if the focus was the studies conducted, or if the metric with which the missed ones were measured was more interesting. This is an important shortcoming.
(h) Results describe the studies, the metrics used, and the results. However, the structure of the discussion is not clear and does not reflect what has emerged and is not anchored in the objectives.
The paper is interesting but its purpose is not clear and this needs to be reviewed in the objectives, introduction, background, as well as in the discussion.
Furthermore, compared the resercah queries registered and that reported in the study:
1. What are the key characteristics of reports that involve the measurement of missed care in residential aged care settings, such as the aims for measuring missed care and the study design employed in these reports?
2. What are the various approaches used to measure missed care in residential aged care settings, and what are the characteristics of these approaches?
3. Does an optimal and all-encompassing approach for measuring missed care in long-term aged care settings currently exist? If it does, what makes it optimal, and if not, what are the reasons for its non-existence?

These are slightly different to that reported.

It is the same for the inclusion criterion: in the PROSPERO we can read; '.. comprehensively explore the range of tools available for measuring missed care, our inclusion criteria encompassed primary studies employing diverse research designs. This allowed us to incorporate both experimental and non-experimental studies with quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methodology designs. Conversely, review articles were excluded from our selection process.'
Differently, in the manuscript there were identified the following
database there is reprted that 'This review embraced all reports offering information on the development, implementation,
and comparison of methods to detect missed care in long-term aged care settings. Reports that did not specifically address the approach and findings related to missed care assessment were excluded.
There are different of these non-alignments that I suggest to adjust.

I have read your study thoroughly.
The majority of aspects appear to be well-managed, therefore I would only like to make the following suggestions: in the study design of the abstract, you mention a guideline that is not further specified; in accordance with the guidelines of the journal, chapter 2 should be titled as background; the research question should not indicate point 3, which instead reflects your discussion, therefore I would remove it.