Reviewer's report
Title:Helicobacter pylori infection and circulating ghrelin levels - A systematic
review
Version: 1Date:8 July 2010
Reviewer: Lorenzo Fuccio
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1.Authors should follow the PRISMA Statement for reporting their meta-analysis
2.The Authors performed a wide and comprehensive literature search, however it
was only limited to English-language publications; this limitation should be stated
in the Discussion section.
3.Statistical methods for evaluating the presence of heterogeneity between
studies do not replace a qualitative assessment of the included studies; all the
included studies seem to be highly heterogeneous according to several items
(design, population, age, method of H.pylori assessment, type of sample used,
etc), therefore any conclusion should be taken with caution; furthermore, the
Authors should consider whether a qualitative rather quantitative analysis should
be preferred. Finally, random rather than fixed effect model should be preferred.
4.Publication bias was only graphically assessed; I suggest to add also a
quantitative evaluation (Begg and Egger tests), since only graphical methods are
less accurate; furthermore, a comment on this issue should be added to the
discussion.
5. The Authors avoid any evalutaion on the study quality; this choice should be
commented or a qualitative assessment should be performed
6. A paragraph suggesting the implications for research and practice should be
added to the discussion section
The quality and the usefulness of a meta-analysis depends on the quality and
homogeneity of the included studies; in order to avoid any misleading conclusion,
the Authors of a meta-analysis should always clearly state all the limitation of
their meta-analysis; although the Authors of the current analysis do not draw any
firm conclusion, however a paragraph in which all strength and limitations are
stated is lacking.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Helicobacter pylori infection and circulating ghrelin levels - A systematic
review
Version: 1Date:8 July 2010
Reviewer: Lorenzo Fuccio
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1.Authors should follow the PRISMA Statement for reporting their meta-analysis
2.The Authors performed a wide and comprehensive literature search, however it
was only limited to English-language publications; this limitation should be stated
in the Discussion section.
3.Statistical methods for evaluating the presence of heterogeneity between
studies do not replace a qualitative assessment of the included studies; all the
included studies seem to be highly heterogeneous according to several items
(design, population, age, method of H.pylori assessment, type of sample used,
etc), therefore any conclusion should be taken with caution; furthermore, the
Authors should consider whether a qualitative rather quantitative analysis should
be preferred. Finally, random rather than fixed effect model should be preferred.
4.Publication bias was only graphically assessed; I suggest to add also a
quantitative evaluation (Begg and Egger tests), since only graphical methods are
less accurate; furthermore, a comment on this issue should be added to the
discussion.
5. The Authors avoid any evalutaion on the study quality; this choice should be
commented or a qualitative assessment should be performed
6. A paragraph suggesting the implications for research and practice should be
added to the discussion section
The quality and the usefulness of a meta-analysis depends on the quality and
homogeneity of the included studies; in order to avoid any misleading conclusion,
the Authors of a meta-analysis should always clearly state all the limitation of
their meta-analysis; although the Authors of the current analysis do not draw any
firm conclusion, however a paragraph in which all strength and limitations are
stated is lacking.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Helicobacter pylori infection and circulating ghrelin levels - A systematic
review
Version: 1Date:8 July 2010
Reviewer: Lorenzo Fuccio
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1.Authors should follow the PRISMA Statement for reporting their meta-analysis
2.The Authors performed a wide and comprehensive literature search, however it
was only limited to English-language publications; this limitation should be stated
in the Discussion section.
3.Statistical methods for evaluating the presence of heterogeneity between
studies do not replace a qualitative assessment of the included studies; all the
included studies seem to be highly heterogeneous according to several items
(design, population, age, method of H.pylori assessment, type of sample used,
etc), therefore any conclusion should be taken with caution; furthermore, the
Authors should consider whether a qualitative rather quantitative analysis should
be preferred. Finally, random rather than fixed effect model should be preferred.
4.Publication bias was only graphically assessed; I suggest to add also a
quantitative evaluation (Begg and Egger tests), since only graphical methods are
less accurate; furthermore, a comment on this issue should be added to the
discussion.
5. The Authors avoid any evalutaion on the study quality; this choice should be
commented or a qualitative assessment should be performed
6. A paragraph suggesting the implications for research and practice should be
added to the discussion section
The quality and the usefulness of a meta-analysis depends on the quality and
homogeneity of the included studies; in order to avoid any misleading conclusion,
the Authors of a meta-analysis should always clearly state all the limitation of
their meta-analysis; although the Authors of the current analysis do not draw any
firm conclusion, however a paragraph in which all strength and limitations are
stated is lacking.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant