Title: The Prognostic Value of Systemic Inflammation Response Index in Digestive System
Carcinomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 04 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
This study consists in a systematic review and meta-analysis on the role of systemic
inflammation (measured by the SIRI index) as a prognostic factor for gastrointestinal neoplasms.
Inflammation markers as prognostic tools is a hot topic in medical oncology literature, and
a systematic review of current evidence is welcome. However, the current paper has serious
methodological problems, and will require major revisions before publication.
The authors have established as inclusion criteria that the selected studies should have evaluated
SIRI as a prognostic tool for GI tumors, and that a lower SIRI group was compared to a higher
SIRI one. The first aspect of these criteria is absolutely appropriate given the goals of this
systematic review. The second aspect, however, introduces unnecessary heterogeneity, since
different studies compared different SIRI cutoffs, so the validity of pooling data from such
is studies is highly questionable, even using random effects model. Besides that, this second
inclusion criteria may exclude some interesting papers which have evaluated the prognostic
effect of SIRI, but didn’t establish any “high versus low” threshold, therefore limiting the data
collect in this systematic review with the sole porpoise of concluding it with a meta-analysis of
little clinical and scientific utility.
Given this very high heterogeneity, I don’t believe that pooled data from these studies should be
synthetized through a meta-analysis, therefore. Therefore, I do not believe that this paper should
published in its current form, since its main results (the meta-analyses) and conclusions are not
scientifically sound.
However, there is a reason why I suggest a major revision of this paper instead of rejection. A
systematic literature search on information about SIRI role in cancer prognostic is warranted.
Therefore, the first part of this trial’s results is actually quite interesting. Systematic reviews
do not necessarily have to end in meta-analyses: many times, exposing the current available
evidence in organized tables is of much more value. Table 1, for instance, gives us a good picture
of state-of-the-art research on SIRI. From there, instead of proceeding to perform meta-analyses,
the authors should expand the exposition of gathered information. More tables summarizing
the design of each study, as well as their main results, are warranted. No meta-analyses are
applicable on this type of literature.
Also, the inclusion criteria for the systematic review should be slightly expanded, for the reason
I’ve already hinted on my third paragraph. Any studies evaluating prognostic impact of SIRI
should be included, even if the said study did not perform a “high vs low” comparison.
Last but not least, English language usage should be improved throughout this paper. After the
technical revision is performed, a suggest a language revision by a native English speaker
Title: The Prognostic Value of Systemic Inflammation Response Index in Digestive System
Carcinomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 04 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
This study consists in a systematic review and meta-analysis on the role of systemic
inflammation (measured by the SIRI index) as a prognostic factor for gastrointestinal neoplasms.
Inflammation markers as prognostic tools is a hot topic in medical oncology literature, and
a systematic review of current evidence is welcome. However, the current paper has serious
methodological problems, and will require major revisions before publication.
The authors have established as inclusion criteria that the selected studies should have evaluated
SIRI as a prognostic tool for GI tumors, and that a lower SIRI group was compared to a higher
SIRI one. The first aspect of these criteria is absolutely appropriate given the goals of this
systematic review. The second aspect, however, introduces unnecessary heterogeneity, since
different studies compared different SIRI cutoffs, so the validity of pooling data from such
is studies is highly questionable, even using random effects model. Besides that, this second
inclusion criteria may exclude some interesting papers which have evaluated the prognostic
effect of SIRI, but didn’t establish any “high versus low” threshold, therefore limiting the data
collect in this systematic review with the sole porpoise of concluding it with a meta-analysis of
little clinical and scientific utility.
Given this very high heterogeneity, I don’t believe that pooled data from these studies should be
synthetized through a meta-analysis, therefore. Therefore, I do not believe that this paper should
published in its current form, since its main results (the meta-analyses) and conclusions are not
scientifically sound.
However, there is a reason why I suggest a major revision of this paper instead of rejection. A
systematic literature search on information about SIRI role in cancer prognostic is warranted.
Therefore, the first part of this trial’s results is actually quite interesting. Systematic reviews
do not necessarily have to end in meta-analyses: many times, exposing the current available
evidence in organized tables is of much more value. Table 1, for instance, gives us a good picture
of state-of-the-art research on SIRI. From there, instead of proceeding to perform meta-analyses,
the authors should expand the exposition of gathered information. More tables summarizing
the design of each study, as well as their main results, are warranted. No meta-analyses are
applicable on this type of literature.
Also, the inclusion criteria for the systematic review should be slightly expanded, for the reason
I’ve already hinted on my third paragraph. Any studies evaluating prognostic impact of SIRI
should be included, even if the said study did not perform a “high vs low” comparison.
Last but not least, English language usage should be improved throughout this paper. After the
technical revision is performed, a suggest a language revision by a native English speaker
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The Prognostic Value of Systemic Inflammation Response Index in Digestive System
Carcinomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 04 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
This study consists in a systematic review and meta-analysis on the role of systemic
inflammation (measured by the SIRI index) as a prognostic factor for gastrointestinal neoplasms.
Inflammation markers as prognostic tools is a hot topic in medical oncology literature, and
a systematic review of current evidence is welcome. However, the current paper has serious
methodological problems, and will require major revisions before publication.
The authors have established as inclusion criteria that the selected studies should have evaluated
SIRI as a prognostic tool for GI tumors, and that a lower SIRI group was compared to a higher
SIRI one. The first aspect of these criteria is absolutely appropriate given the goals of this
systematic review. The second aspect, however, introduces unnecessary heterogeneity, since
different studies compared different SIRI cutoffs, so the validity of pooling data from such
is studies is highly questionable, even using random effects model. Besides that, this second
inclusion criteria may exclude some interesting papers which have evaluated the prognostic
effect of SIRI, but didn’t establish any “high versus low” threshold, therefore limiting the data
collect in this systematic review with the sole porpoise of concluding it with a meta-analysis of
little clinical and scientific utility.
Given this very high heterogeneity, I don’t believe that pooled data from these studies should be
synthetized through a meta-analysis, therefore. Therefore, I do not believe that this paper should
published in its current form, since its main results (the meta-analyses) and conclusions are not
scientifically sound.
However, there is a reason why I suggest a major revision of this paper instead of rejection. A
systematic literature search on information about SIRI role in cancer prognostic is warranted.
Therefore, the first part of this trial’s results is actually quite interesting. Systematic reviews
do not necessarily have to end in meta-analyses: many times, exposing the current available
evidence in organized tables is of much more value. Table 1, for instance, gives us a good picture
of state-of-the-art research on SIRI. From there, instead of proceeding to perform meta-analyses,
the authors should expand the exposition of gathered information. More tables summarizing
the design of each study, as well as their main results, are warranted. No meta-analyses are
applicable on this type of literature.
Also, the inclusion criteria for the systematic review should be slightly expanded, for the reason
I’ve already hinted on my third paragraph. Any studies evaluating prognostic impact of SIRI
should be included, even if the said study did not perform a “high vs low” comparison.
Last but not least, English language usage should be improved throughout this paper. After the
technical revision is performed, a suggest a language revision by a native English speaker
assistant