Title: A systematic review and meta-analysis#The therapeutic and preventive effect of
Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 addition in children with diarrhea
Version: 2 Date: 24 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
"The authors have addressed the considerable issues related to the effect of adding Lactobacillus
reuteri to manage diarrheal diseases among "children" through a systematic review and meta-
analysis. However, it is recommended pay attention to the following comments, which are
expected to help authors improve the quality of the manuscript."
*The main text needs English spelling, punctuation, grammar check and editing.*
( some sentences are repeated twice in the maintext, for e.g. the second line in “Inclusion and
exclusion criterion” subsection.)
Abstract
• It is necessary to report more information regarding the design of the study and statistical
methods used for analysis in the material and methods sub-section.
Introduction
• Objective of the study well not organized and needs correction.
• What is the exact aim of this review? Efficacy on children, or adults, or both groups?
In the background section, the aim of the study is clearly reported on the children’s population,
but the studies on adult population are also considered in analysis, please clarify this.
Methods
• Please clearly state the research question using PICO format.
• Please specify the more details about methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies,
such as how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently.
• As you know, bias is distinguished from quality. According to the design of included studies
in this review, which one have you assessed? Which Cochrane tool was used for assessment?
Please provide a relevant reference and an approporaite subsection's title.
• Please completely define the methods used to screening and data collection from records,
including how many reviewers screened and collected data from each record, whether they
worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators,
how agreements to be reached and disagreements dealt with, etc.
• The data extracted from the included studies for meta-analysis are not clear. It is better to report
appropriate information about data extracted for analysis.
Results
• Please present assessments of risk of bias results for each included study in the result section.
• Information about primary and secondary outcomes are not reported in Table1.
• Why did you pooled studies on children with studies on adults in analysis? It would
have been better to analyze these studies separately in subgroup analysis.
Title: A systematic review and meta-analysis#The therapeutic and preventive effect of
Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 addition in children with diarrhea
Version: 2 Date: 24 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
"The authors have addressed the considerable issues related to the effect of adding Lactobacillus
reuteri to manage diarrheal diseases among "children" through a systematic review and meta-
analysis. However, it is recommended pay attention to the following comments, which are
expected to help authors improve the quality of the manuscript."
*The main text needs English spelling, punctuation, grammar check and editing.*
( some sentences are repeated twice in the maintext, for e.g. the second line in “Inclusion and
exclusion criterion” subsection.)
Abstract
• It is necessary to report more information regarding the design of the study and statistical
methods used for analysis in the material and methods sub-section.
Introduction
• Objective of the study well not organized and needs correction.
• What is the exact aim of this review? Efficacy on children, or adults, or both groups?
In the background section, the aim of the study is clearly reported on the children’s population,
but the studies on adult population are also considered in analysis, please clarify this.
Methods
• Please clearly state the research question using PICO format.
• Please specify the more details about methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies,
such as how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently.
• As you know, bias is distinguished from quality. According to the design of included studies
in this review, which one have you assessed? Which Cochrane tool was used for assessment?
Please provide a relevant reference and an approporaite subsection's title.
• Please completely define the methods used to screening and data collection from records,
including how many reviewers screened and collected data from each record, whether they
worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators,
how agreements to be reached and disagreements dealt with, etc.
• The data extracted from the included studies for meta-analysis are not clear. It is better to report
appropriate information about data extracted for analysis.
Results
• Please present assessments of risk of bias results for each included study in the result section.
• Information about primary and secondary outcomes are not reported in Table1.
• Why did you pooled studies on children with studies on adults in analysis? It would
have been better to analyze these studies separately in subgroup analysis.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: A systematic review and meta-analysis#The therapeutic and preventive effect of
Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 addition in children with diarrhea
Version: 2 Date: 24 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
"The authors have addressed the considerable issues related to the effect of adding Lactobacillus
reuteri to manage diarrheal diseases among "children" through a systematic review and meta-
analysis. However, it is recommended pay attention to the following comments, which are
expected to help authors improve the quality of the manuscript."
*The main text needs English spelling, punctuation, grammar check and editing.*
( some sentences are repeated twice in the maintext, for e.g. the second line in “Inclusion and
exclusion criterion” subsection.)
Abstract
• It is necessary to report more information regarding the design of the study and statistical
methods used for analysis in the material and methods sub-section.
Introduction
• Objective of the study well not organized and needs correction.
• What is the exact aim of this review? Efficacy on children, or adults, or both groups?
In the background section, the aim of the study is clearly reported on the children’s population,
but the studies on adult population are also considered in analysis, please clarify this.
Methods
• Please clearly state the research question using PICO format.
• Please specify the more details about methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies,
such as how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently.
• As you know, bias is distinguished from quality. According to the design of included studies
in this review, which one have you assessed? Which Cochrane tool was used for assessment?
Please provide a relevant reference and an approporaite subsection's title.
• Please completely define the methods used to screening and data collection from records,
including how many reviewers screened and collected data from each record, whether they
worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators,
how agreements to be reached and disagreements dealt with, etc.
• The data extracted from the included studies for meta-analysis are not clear. It is better to report
appropriate information about data extracted for analysis.
Results
• Please present assessments of risk of bias results for each included study in the result section.
• Information about primary and secondary outcomes are not reported in Table1.
• Why did you pooled studies on children with studies on adults in analysis? It would
have been better to analyze these studies separately in subgroup analysis.
assistant