Reviewer's report
Title:Green tea consumption and risk of esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis of
epidemiologic studies
Version: 1Date:23 May 2012
Reviewer: Alessandra Tavani
Reviewer's report:
The subject is interesting, but the meta-analysis has not been conducted
properly. First the authors should follows the usually used MOOSE guidelines
and the bibliographic research is not correctly done as a few papers on the
relationship between green tea consumption and esophageal cancer are missing.
The authors do not indicate if they have done also manual search based on
references of the included papers, which is essential. The number of total cases
and exposed cases in the categories considered in the analyses should be
reported. Also the number of studies and subjects included in the subgroup
analyses should be reported.
Minor points:
The abstract is not enough informative (eg the authors do not indicate how many
prospective and case-control studies are included)
OR and RR are used as synonymous and they are not
A meta-analysis can’t be based on one only nested-case-control study
The language must be improved
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Green tea consumption and risk of esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis of
epidemiologic studies
Version: 1Date:23 May 2012
Reviewer: Alessandra Tavani
Reviewer's report:
The subject is interesting, but the meta-analysis has not been conducted
properly. First the authors should follows the usually used MOOSE guidelines
and the bibliographic research is not correctly done as a few papers on the
relationship between green tea consumption and esophageal cancer are missing.
The authors do not indicate if they have done also manual search based on
references of the included papers, which is essential. The number of total cases
and exposed cases in the categories considered in the analyses should be
reported. Also the number of studies and subjects included in the subgroup
analyses should be reported.
Minor points:
The abstract is not enough informative (eg the authors do not indicate how many
prospective and case-control studies are included)
OR and RR are used as synonymous and they are not
A meta-analysis can’t be based on one only nested-case-control study
The language must be improved
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Green tea consumption and risk of esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis of
epidemiologic studies
Version: 1Date:23 May 2012
Reviewer: Alessandra Tavani
Reviewer's report:
The subject is interesting, but the meta-analysis has not been conducted
properly. First the authors should follows the usually used MOOSE guidelines
and the bibliographic research is not correctly done as a few papers on the
relationship between green tea consumption and esophageal cancer are missing.
The authors do not indicate if they have done also manual search based on
references of the included papers, which is essential. The number of total cases
and exposed cases in the categories considered in the analyses should be
reported. Also the number of studies and subjects included in the subgroup
analyses should be reported.
Minor points:
The abstract is not enough informative (eg the authors do not indicate how many
prospective and case-control studies are included)
OR and RR are used as synonymous and they are not
A meta-analysis can’t be based on one only nested-case-control study
The language must be improved
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant