Title: Risk factors for metachronous colorectal cancer and advanced neoplasia following
primary colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 10 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
STATISTICAL REVIEWER ASSESSMENT:
Is the study design appropriate for the research question (considering whether the analyzed
population accurately reflects the design and whether you see any problems with control/
comparison groups, e.g., likely confounders)?
Yes - overall design, population, and control groups are appropriate
Are methodologies adequate and well implemented (considering whether assumptions are
addressed and whether analyses are robust)?
Yes - methodologies are adequate and well implemented, assumptions are addressed, analysis
is robust
Are the analyses adequately communicated (considering whether reporting details are adequate
and whether figures and tables are well labeled and described)?
No - there are minor issues
Does the interpretation accurately reflect the analyses without overstatement (considering
whether limitations/bias are acknowledged and whether accurate descriptors, e.g., 'significant',
are used)?
Yes - interpretation accurately reflects analyses, limitations/bias are acknowledged, accurate
descriptors are used
Could an appropriately REVISED version of this work represent a statistically sound
contribution?
Probably - with minor revisions
STATISTICAL REVIEWER COMMENTS:
In general, this systematic review and meta-analysis were well reported, followed the PRISMA
guidelines, and proper statistical methods were used. However, there are some issues that need
further clarification from the authors.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
1. Was the protocol of the systematic review and meta-analysis registered in any publicly
accessible database?
Methods (Abstract):
2. Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review.
3. Specify the time period for literature searching.
4. Specify the methods used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.
Results (Abstract):
5. Provide the total number of participants in the included studies, and briefly summarize relevant
characteristics of these studies.
Conclusion (Abstract):
6, Provide a brief summary of the limitations of the evidence included in the review, such as
study risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision.
Methods (Main Text):
7. Consider incorporating "Definitions" into the "Eligibility criteria" section.
8. Specify whether language restrictions were applied to the literature search.
9. Split the "Searches" section into "Searches" and "Screening" for clarity.
10. Provide details of any automation tools used in the data extraction process, if applicable.
11. Since the authors aimed to include RCTs in the meta-analysis (though couldn't find any),
please provide information on the tool that they intended to use to assess the risk of bias for
RCTs.
12. In addition to RR, OR, and HR, the absolute risk difference should be also considered as
an effect measure.
13. Describe the method used to handle missing statistics, if applicable.
Title: Risk factors for metachronous colorectal cancer and advanced neoplasia following
primary colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 10 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
STATISTICAL REVIEWER ASSESSMENT:
Is the study design appropriate for the research question (considering whether the analyzed
population accurately reflects the design and whether you see any problems with control/
comparison groups, e.g., likely confounders)?
Yes - overall design, population, and control groups are appropriate
Are methodologies adequate and well implemented (considering whether assumptions are
addressed and whether analyses are robust)?
Yes - methodologies are adequate and well implemented, assumptions are addressed, analysis
is robust
Are the analyses adequately communicated (considering whether reporting details are adequate
and whether figures and tables are well labeled and described)?
No - there are minor issues
Does the interpretation accurately reflect the analyses without overstatement (considering
whether limitations/bias are acknowledged and whether accurate descriptors, e.g., 'significant',
are used)?
Yes - interpretation accurately reflects analyses, limitations/bias are acknowledged, accurate
descriptors are used
Could an appropriately REVISED version of this work represent a statistically sound
contribution?
Probably - with minor revisions
STATISTICAL REVIEWER COMMENTS:
In general, this systematic review and meta-analysis were well reported, followed the PRISMA
guidelines, and proper statistical methods were used. However, there are some issues that need
further clarification from the authors.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
1. Was the protocol of the systematic review and meta-analysis registered in any publicly
accessible database?
Methods (Abstract):
2. Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review.
3. Specify the time period for literature searching.
4. Specify the methods used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.
Results (Abstract):
5. Provide the total number of participants in the included studies, and briefly summarize relevant
characteristics of these studies.
Conclusion (Abstract):
6, Provide a brief summary of the limitations of the evidence included in the review, such as
study risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision.
Methods (Main Text):
7. Consider incorporating "Definitions" into the "Eligibility criteria" section.
8. Specify whether language restrictions were applied to the literature search.
9. Split the "Searches" section into "Searches" and "Screening" for clarity.
10. Provide details of any automation tools used in the data extraction process, if applicable.
11. Since the authors aimed to include RCTs in the meta-analysis (though couldn't find any),
please provide information on the tool that they intended to use to assess the risk of bias for
RCTs.
12. In addition to RR, OR, and HR, the absolute risk difference should be also considered as
an effect measure.
13. Describe the method used to handle missing statistics, if applicable.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Risk factors for metachronous colorectal cancer and advanced neoplasia following
primary colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 10 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
STATISTICAL REVIEWER ASSESSMENT:
Is the study design appropriate for the research question (considering whether the analyzed
population accurately reflects the design and whether you see any problems with control/
comparison groups, e.g., likely confounders)?
Yes - overall design, population, and control groups are appropriate
Are methodologies adequate and well implemented (considering whether assumptions are
addressed and whether analyses are robust)?
Yes - methodologies are adequate and well implemented, assumptions are addressed, analysis
is robust
Are the analyses adequately communicated (considering whether reporting details are adequate
and whether figures and tables are well labeled and described)?
No - there are minor issues
Does the interpretation accurately reflect the analyses without overstatement (considering
whether limitations/bias are acknowledged and whether accurate descriptors, e.g., 'significant',
are used)?
Yes - interpretation accurately reflects analyses, limitations/bias are acknowledged, accurate
descriptors are used
Could an appropriately REVISED version of this work represent a statistically sound
contribution?
Probably - with minor revisions
STATISTICAL REVIEWER COMMENTS:
In general, this systematic review and meta-analysis were well reported, followed the PRISMA
guidelines, and proper statistical methods were used. However, there are some issues that need
further clarification from the authors.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
1. Was the protocol of the systematic review and meta-analysis registered in any publicly
accessible database?
Methods (Abstract):
2. Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review.
3. Specify the time period for literature searching.
4. Specify the methods used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.
Results (Abstract):
5. Provide the total number of participants in the included studies, and briefly summarize relevant
characteristics of these studies.
Conclusion (Abstract):
6, Provide a brief summary of the limitations of the evidence included in the review, such as
study risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision.
Methods (Main Text):
7. Consider incorporating "Definitions" into the "Eligibility criteria" section.
8. Specify whether language restrictions were applied to the literature search.
9. Split the "Searches" section into "Searches" and "Screening" for clarity.
10. Provide details of any automation tools used in the data extraction process, if applicable.
11. Since the authors aimed to include RCTs in the meta-analysis (though couldn't find any),
please provide information on the tool that they intended to use to assess the risk of bias for
RCTs.
12. In addition to RR, OR, and HR, the absolute risk difference should be also considered as
an effect measure.
13. Describe the method used to handle missing statistics, if applicable.
assistant