- Email: [email protected]
Peer review report 1 on “Prognostic and clinical significance of claudin-1 in colorectal cancer: A systemic review and meta-analysis”
International Journal of Surgery 37 Supplement 1 (2017) S192
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Surgery journal homepage: www.journal-surgery.net
Peer Review Report
Peer review report 1 on “Prognostic and clinical significance of claudin-1 in colorectal cancer: A systemic review and meta-analysis”
1. Original Submission 1.1. Recommendation Major Revision
9) Methods: “Eight articles were published between 2005 and 2013. All the studies used IHC methods for claudin-1 staining.” should be moved up and 2. First Revision 2.1. Recommendation
1.2. Comments to the author Minor Revision The included articles have sometimes categorized claudin-1 loss based on its severity. How did the authors define claudin-1 loss? Can an SMD method be used to compare the scores between TNMIII-IV and TNM0-II? 2) 3) 4) 5)
How did the authors convert HR to OR? Why? NOS score is not reported for the included studies. For large heterogeneity, random-effects model should be used. A table or tables are needed to show raw data, i.e. how many patients in each study had claudin-1 loss based on TNM results. It is good to know how the odds were calculated. 6) For prognosis (survival), HR should be reported. 7) Did studies from Japan have any overlap in terms of including same patients? 8) Introduction: “It has been done in a try to understand its pathogenesis and assess the valuable prognosis factor” is not complete.
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.02.005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.02.048 1743-9191
2.2. Comments to the author I thank the authors for the clarifications regarding HR and OR. In the methods section it is mentioned that “the pooled hazard ratio (HR) with its 95 % confidence interval (95 %CI) was used to assess association between claudin-1 expression and the prognostic value of CRC patients.” I am not seeing any HR reported in the metaanalysis and all results are presented as OR. Therefore, this sentence can be changed to “the pooled odds ratio with its 95 % confidence interval (95 %CI) was used to assess association between claudin1 expression and the prognostic value of CRC patients”. Please revise this and if I am missing any HR in the paper, please inform me. Otherwise, this paper looks acceptable now. Anonymous reviewer
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Surgery journal homepage: www.journal-surgery.net
Peer Review Report
Peer review report 1 on “Prognostic and clinical significance of claudin-1 in colorectal cancer: A systemic review and meta-analysis”
1. Original Submission 1.1. Recommendation Major Revision
9) Methods: “Eight articles were published between 2005 and 2013. All the studies used IHC methods for claudin-1 staining.” should be moved up and 2. First Revision 2.1. Recommendation
1.2. Comments to the author Minor Revision The included articles have sometimes categorized claudin-1 loss based on its severity. How did the authors define claudin-1 loss? Can an SMD method be used to compare the scores between TNMIII-IV and TNM0-II? 2) 3) 4) 5)
How did the authors convert HR to OR? Why? NOS score is not reported for the included studies. For large heterogeneity, random-effects model should be used. A table or tables are needed to show raw data, i.e. how many patients in each study had claudin-1 loss based on TNM results. It is good to know how the odds were calculated. 6) For prognosis (survival), HR should be reported. 7) Did studies from Japan have any overlap in terms of including same patients? 8) Introduction: “It has been done in a try to understand its pathogenesis and assess the valuable prognosis factor” is not complete.
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.02.005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.02.048 1743-9191
2.2. Comments to the author I thank the authors for the clarifications regarding HR and OR. In the methods section it is mentioned that “the pooled hazard ratio (HR) with its 95 % confidence interval (95 %CI) was used to assess association between claudin-1 expression and the prognostic value of CRC patients.” I am not seeing any HR reported in the metaanalysis and all results are presented as OR. Therefore, this sentence can be changed to “the pooled odds ratio with its 95 % confidence interval (95 %CI) was used to assess association between claudin1 expression and the prognostic value of CRC patients”. Please revise this and if I am missing any HR in the paper, please inform me. Otherwise, this paper looks acceptable now. Anonymous reviewer