Title: Comparison of Metal Versus Plastic Stent for Preoperative Biliary Drainage in Patients
With Pancreatic Cancer Undergoing Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic
Review
Version: 0 Date: 10 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a study by Lyu et al comparing metal and plastic stents for preoperative biliary drainage
in patients with pancreatic cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. I congratulate the
authors on this study; however, I have a few concerns as listed below:
1. Please expand the RBO abbreviation when it appears the first time in the text.
2. Please add definitions of your outcomes in the methods section.
3. The numbers in your PRISMA figure (Figure 1) do not add up. Please recheck.
4. Please add the PRISMA checklist to your manuscript
5. This study is very similar to the study published by Du and colleagues in 2022(see citation
below). What does this study add to the previously published literature?
(Du J, Gao X, Zhang H, Wan Z, Yu H, Wang D. Stent Selection in Preoperative Biliary
Drainage for Patients With Operable Pancreatic Cancer Receiving Neoadjuvant Therapy: A
Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Front Surg. 2022 Jun 30;9:875504. doi: 10.3389/
fsurg.2022.875504. PMID: 35846957; PMCID: PMC9280034.)
6. Even though the study of Heneghan et al has been added to your study, I do not see any
analysis on this study. Why was this study not included in any analysis? What was the rationale
of the inclusion of this study?
7. In the discussion section, please try to expand on individual outcomes and explain why they
happened.
8. There are multiple grammatical errors throughout the manuscript.
Title: Comparison of Metal Versus Plastic Stent for Preoperative Biliary Drainage in Patients
With Pancreatic Cancer Undergoing Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic
Review
Version: 0 Date: 10 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a study by Lyu et al comparing metal and plastic stents for preoperative biliary drainage
in patients with pancreatic cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. I congratulate the
authors on this study; however, I have a few concerns as listed below:
1. Please expand the RBO abbreviation when it appears the first time in the text.
2. Please add definitions of your outcomes in the methods section.
3. The numbers in your PRISMA figure (Figure 1) do not add up. Please recheck.
4. Please add the PRISMA checklist to your manuscript
5. This study is very similar to the study published by Du and colleagues in 2022(see citation
below). What does this study add to the previously published literature?
(Du J, Gao X, Zhang H, Wan Z, Yu H, Wang D. Stent Selection in Preoperative Biliary
Drainage for Patients With Operable Pancreatic Cancer Receiving Neoadjuvant Therapy: A
Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Front Surg. 2022 Jun 30;9:875504. doi: 10.3389/
fsurg.2022.875504. PMID: 35846957; PMCID: PMC9280034.)
6. Even though the study of Heneghan et al has been added to your study, I do not see any
analysis on this study. Why was this study not included in any analysis? What was the rationale
of the inclusion of this study?
7. In the discussion section, please try to expand on individual outcomes and explain why they
happened.
8. There are multiple grammatical errors throughout the manuscript.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Comparison of Metal Versus Plastic Stent for Preoperative Biliary Drainage in Patients
With Pancreatic Cancer Undergoing Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic
Review
Version: 0 Date: 10 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a study by Lyu et al comparing metal and plastic stents for preoperative biliary drainage
in patients with pancreatic cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. I congratulate the
authors on this study; however, I have a few concerns as listed below:
1. Please expand the RBO abbreviation when it appears the first time in the text.
2. Please add definitions of your outcomes in the methods section.
3. The numbers in your PRISMA figure (Figure 1) do not add up. Please recheck.
4. Please add the PRISMA checklist to your manuscript
5. This study is very similar to the study published by Du and colleagues in 2022(see citation
below). What does this study add to the previously published literature?
(Du J, Gao X, Zhang H, Wan Z, Yu H, Wang D. Stent Selection in Preoperative Biliary
Drainage for Patients With Operable Pancreatic Cancer Receiving Neoadjuvant Therapy: A
Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Front Surg. 2022 Jun 30;9:875504. doi: 10.3389/
fsurg.2022.875504. PMID: 35846957; PMCID: PMC9280034.)
6. Even though the study of Heneghan et al has been added to your study, I do not see any
analysis on this study. Why was this study not included in any analysis? What was the rationale
of the inclusion of this study?
7. In the discussion section, please try to expand on individual outcomes and explain why they
happened.
8. There are multiple grammatical errors throughout the manuscript.
assistant