Expert on Scientific high impact journal help on which design to stick to that will avoid rejection since computer generated has just been slightly mention in the design

1. Study design: clarify and be consistent Reviewer 7’s main concern is the ambiguity of the research design. In several places, you describe the study as “quasi‑experimental”, but you also report classic RCT features: “simple random sampling,” “computer‑generated random number table,” “allocation concealment,” and “sealed, opaque, sequentially numbered envelopes.” ​ Lack of blinding does not by itself make a study quasi‑experimental; many RCTs are unblinded at the provider level. ​ You should: Decide, based on the actual conduct of the study, whether this was truly a randomized controlled trial (with random allocation) or a non‑randomized quasi‑experimental study.

Once decided, update all occurrences of the design label in the Abstract, Methods, Discussion and Conclusion accordingly, and ensure that the described procedures (sampling, allocation, concealment) align with that terminology. ​ If it is randomized, call it a randomized controlled trial and explain that blinding was not feasible but randomization and allocation concealment were implemented. If it is non‑randomized, remove RCT‑specific wording and clearly describe how groups were formed.

This conceptual clarity is essential.