Title: Association between adhering to a dietary approach to stop hypertension and risk of
colorectal cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 30 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, please address the following points below
-Although the introduction outlines the components of the DASH diet, it would benefit from
a brief mention of possible biological mechanisms linking DASH diet adherence to CRC
prevention. For instance, how might the DASH diet impact inflammation, gut microbiota, or
oxidative stress—key factors in cancer development?
-The introduction could benefit from highlighting more directly the gap in the literature
regarding the DASH diet and CRC prevention. This would strengthen the argument for
conducting the systematic review and meta-analysis.
-While the inclusion criteria are well-defined, it would be helpful to mention what types of
observational studies are being included. For example, are both case-control studies and cohort
studies acceptable? This level of specificity can aid in the reproducibility and clarity of the
review process.
-Subgroup analyses based on factors like gender, geographical location, and study design are
mentioned, but it would be beneficial to elaborate on how these subgroups are expected to
influence the results. For example, are there specific reasons to believe that gender or region
might alter the effect of the DASH diet on CRC risk?
-While the authors mention the gender differences observed in the results, a more detailed
exploration of why such differences might occur would enhance the discussion. For example,
are there hormonal or lifestyle factors that could explain why the DASH diet is more protective
in men than in women in certain studies? A deeper dive into this could strengthen the paper’s
conclusions on this point.
-While the authors mention that subgroup analyses were conducted, it would be helpful to
have more detailed results from these analyses. For instance, which factors (e.g., geographical
location, socioeconomic status, baseline diet) showed the most significant heterogeneity in the
results? Presenting these details could provide more context for understanding the variability
in outcomes.
-While some confounders like physical activity and lifestyle behaviors are briefly mentioned,
a more comprehensive discussion of potential confounders would be beneficial. For example,
how might underlying comorbidities (e.g., diabetes, hypertension) influence the observed
relationship between DASH adherence and CRC risk? A more in-depth exploration of these
variables could further clarify the diet's role.
Title: Association between adhering to a dietary approach to stop hypertension and risk of
colorectal cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 30 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, please address the following points below
-Although the introduction outlines the components of the DASH diet, it would benefit from
a brief mention of possible biological mechanisms linking DASH diet adherence to CRC
prevention. For instance, how might the DASH diet impact inflammation, gut microbiota, or
oxidative stress—key factors in cancer development?
-The introduction could benefit from highlighting more directly the gap in the literature
regarding the DASH diet and CRC prevention. This would strengthen the argument for
conducting the systematic review and meta-analysis.
-While the inclusion criteria are well-defined, it would be helpful to mention what types of
observational studies are being included. For example, are both case-control studies and cohort
studies acceptable? This level of specificity can aid in the reproducibility and clarity of the
review process.
-Subgroup analyses based on factors like gender, geographical location, and study design are
mentioned, but it would be beneficial to elaborate on how these subgroups are expected to
influence the results. For example, are there specific reasons to believe that gender or region
might alter the effect of the DASH diet on CRC risk?
-While the authors mention the gender differences observed in the results, a more detailed
exploration of why such differences might occur would enhance the discussion. For example,
are there hormonal or lifestyle factors that could explain why the DASH diet is more protective
in men than in women in certain studies? A deeper dive into this could strengthen the paper’s
conclusions on this point.
-While the authors mention that subgroup analyses were conducted, it would be helpful to
have more detailed results from these analyses. For instance, which factors (e.g., geographical
location, socioeconomic status, baseline diet) showed the most significant heterogeneity in the
results? Presenting these details could provide more context for understanding the variability
in outcomes.
-While some confounders like physical activity and lifestyle behaviors are briefly mentioned,
a more comprehensive discussion of potential confounders would be beneficial. For example,
how might underlying comorbidities (e.g., diabetes, hypertension) influence the observed
relationship between DASH adherence and CRC risk? A more in-depth exploration of these
variables could further clarify the diet's role.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Association between adhering to a dietary approach to stop hypertension and risk of
colorectal cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 30 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, please address the following points below
-Although the introduction outlines the components of the DASH diet, it would benefit from
a brief mention of possible biological mechanisms linking DASH diet adherence to CRC
prevention. For instance, how might the DASH diet impact inflammation, gut microbiota, or
oxidative stress—key factors in cancer development?
-The introduction could benefit from highlighting more directly the gap in the literature
regarding the DASH diet and CRC prevention. This would strengthen the argument for
conducting the systematic review and meta-analysis.
-While the inclusion criteria are well-defined, it would be helpful to mention what types of
observational studies are being included. For example, are both case-control studies and cohort
studies acceptable? This level of specificity can aid in the reproducibility and clarity of the
review process.
-Subgroup analyses based on factors like gender, geographical location, and study design are
mentioned, but it would be beneficial to elaborate on how these subgroups are expected to
influence the results. For example, are there specific reasons to believe that gender or region
might alter the effect of the DASH diet on CRC risk?
-While the authors mention the gender differences observed in the results, a more detailed
exploration of why such differences might occur would enhance the discussion. For example,
are there hormonal or lifestyle factors that could explain why the DASH diet is more protective
in men than in women in certain studies? A deeper dive into this could strengthen the paper’s
conclusions on this point.
-While the authors mention that subgroup analyses were conducted, it would be helpful to
have more detailed results from these analyses. For instance, which factors (e.g., geographical
location, socioeconomic status, baseline diet) showed the most significant heterogeneity in the
results? Presenting these details could provide more context for understanding the variability
in outcomes.
-While some confounders like physical activity and lifestyle behaviors are briefly mentioned,
a more comprehensive discussion of potential confounders would be beneficial. For example,
how might underlying comorbidities (e.g., diabetes, hypertension) influence the observed
relationship between DASH adherence and CRC risk? A more in-depth exploration of these
variables could further clarify the diet's role.
assistant