Title: Comparative profiles of lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat for chronic constipation:
A systematic literature review with meta-analysis and number needed to treat/harm
Version: 1 Date: 07 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
This was a well conducted and well-written systematic review with network meta-analysis. The
authors should be commended for their work. However, the main limitation of this works, which
dramatically reduces the information drawn from this work is that only few studies, mostly non-
randomized, were available for meta-analysis. It must be noted, however, that the authors have
performed additional analyses to reduce bias. In addition, the authors have acknowledged the
limitations of their work In the discussion. I only have two major comments
MAJOR COMMENTS
1. Most of the analysis only included two studies. In addition, there is a funnel plot on only one
study (Figure 3b, linaclotide145mcg), which obviously accounts for 100% of the weight of the
evidence. This should be removed from the analysis.
2. In the meta-analysis results section I would add information on the duration of the treatment.
The reason is that this outcome was generally assessed in the very-short term (1-2 weeks). And
this should be stressed both in the results section and in the discussion section.
Title: Comparative profiles of lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat for chronic constipation:
A systematic literature review with meta-analysis and number needed to treat/harm
Version: 1 Date: 07 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
This was a well conducted and well-written systematic review with network meta-analysis. The
authors should be commended for their work. However, the main limitation of this works, which
dramatically reduces the information drawn from this work is that only few studies, mostly non-
randomized, were available for meta-analysis. It must be noted, however, that the authors have
performed additional analyses to reduce bias. In addition, the authors have acknowledged the
limitations of their work In the discussion. I only have two major comments
MAJOR COMMENTS
1. Most of the analysis only included two studies. In addition, there is a funnel plot on only one
study (Figure 3b, linaclotide145mcg), which obviously accounts for 100% of the weight of the
evidence. This should be removed from the analysis.
2. In the meta-analysis results section I would add information on the duration of the treatment.
The reason is that this outcome was generally assessed in the very-short term (1-2 weeks). And
this should be stressed both in the results section and in the discussion section.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Comparative profiles of lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat for chronic constipation:
A systematic literature review with meta-analysis and number needed to treat/harm
Version: 1 Date: 07 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
This was a well conducted and well-written systematic review with network meta-analysis. The
authors should be commended for their work. However, the main limitation of this works, which
dramatically reduces the information drawn from this work is that only few studies, mostly non-
randomized, were available for meta-analysis. It must be noted, however, that the authors have
performed additional analyses to reduce bias. In addition, the authors have acknowledged the
limitations of their work In the discussion. I only have two major comments
MAJOR COMMENTS
1. Most of the analysis only included two studies. In addition, there is a funnel plot on only one
study (Figure 3b, linaclotide145mcg), which obviously accounts for 100% of the weight of the
evidence. This should be removed from the analysis.
2. In the meta-analysis results section I would add information on the duration of the treatment.
The reason is that this outcome was generally assessed in the very-short term (1-2 weeks). And
this should be stressed both in the results section and in the discussion section.
assistant