Title: Birth Characteristics and Risk of Colorectal Cancer
Version: 0 Date: 18 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear editorial team,
Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript. The study aimed to investigate the
relationship between birth characteristics and future risk of colorectal cancer. In overall, the
manuscript was well-structured and suitable for international journals. With all due respect,
some observations and considerations are noted as follows:
Introduction:
Linguistic and grammatical checks are necessary.
The authors may need to provide a clearer explanation relationship between low or high
birth weight and colorectal cancer (CRC). Specifically, they could hypothesize major possible
mechanisms to explain the potential relationship between birth weight and later development
of CRC.
Methods Section:
The "Cochrane Handbook" should be cited when describing the systematic review/meta-analysis
(SR/MA) methodology.
It should be stated which major guideline (e.g. MOOSE or PRISMA) was followed to conduct
this SR/MA.
The search strategy should be reproducible; I recommend the authors add the exact search terms/
keywords used, in a supplementary table (appendix).
The inclusion criteria specify only case-control and "prospective cohort" studies; however,
retrospective studies (e.g. Sandhu et al.) appear to also be included. This discrepancy should
be clarified.
The study quality assessment refers to "original authors" at the end, but this  was not properly
defined earlier.
The authors should check journal instructions to determine whether registration in databases
such as PROSPERO is required.
Results:
Figure 1 could be better organized to more clearly display the number of studies excluded
with reasons for exclusion (e.g. insufficiency in exposure/outcome assessment, study design,
statistical).
Table 1 should include study design and references for each study. Additionally, a new column
listing major adjusted factors would aid interpretation.
Discussion:
This section is well-written with suitable comparative examples.
The authors could add a paragraph discussing potential mechanisms linking birth weight to later
CRC risk, such as influences of hormone levels or microbiome composition and/or inflammatory
processes.
Given the low heterogeneity among studies, the authors should attempt to explain
inconsistencies in results regarding the association between birth weight and CRC across
different studies.
In summary, the comments aim to strengthen clarity, completeness and rigor of reporting to
improve the overall quality and impact of the manuscript.
I hope these comments will be helpful
Title: Birth Characteristics and Risk of Colorectal Cancer
Version: 0 Date: 18 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear editorial team,
Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript. The study aimed to investigate the
relationship between birth characteristics and future risk of colorectal cancer. In overall, the
manuscript was well-structured and suitable for international journals. With all due respect,
some observations and considerations are noted as follows:
Introduction:
Linguistic and grammatical checks are necessary.
The authors may need to provide a clearer explanation relationship between low or high
birth weight and colorectal cancer (CRC). Specifically, they could hypothesize major possible
mechanisms to explain the potential relationship between birth weight and later development
of CRC.
Methods Section:
The "Cochrane Handbook" should be cited when describing the systematic review/meta-analysis
(SR/MA) methodology.
It should be stated which major guideline (e.g. MOOSE or PRISMA) was followed to conduct
this SR/MA.
The search strategy should be reproducible; I recommend the authors add the exact search terms/
keywords used, in a supplementary table (appendix).
The inclusion criteria specify only case-control and "prospective cohort" studies; however,
retrospective studies (e.g. Sandhu et al.) appear to also be included. This discrepancy should
be clarified.
The study quality assessment refers to "original authors" at the end, but this  was not properly
defined earlier.
The authors should check journal instructions to determine whether registration in databases
such as PROSPERO is required.
Results:
Figure 1 could be better organized to more clearly display the number of studies excluded
with reasons for exclusion (e.g. insufficiency in exposure/outcome assessment, study design,
statistical).
Table 1 should include study design and references for each study. Additionally, a new column
listing major adjusted factors would aid interpretation.
Discussion:
This section is well-written with suitable comparative examples.
The authors could add a paragraph discussing potential mechanisms linking birth weight to later
CRC risk, such as influences of hormone levels or microbiome composition and/or inflammatory
processes.
Given the low heterogeneity among studies, the authors should attempt to explain
inconsistencies in results regarding the association between birth weight and CRC across
different studies.
In summary, the comments aim to strengthen clarity, completeness and rigor of reporting to
improve the overall quality and impact of the manuscript.
I hope these comments will be helpful
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Birth Characteristics and Risk of Colorectal Cancer
Version: 0 Date: 18 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear editorial team,
Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript. The study aimed to investigate the
relationship between birth characteristics and future risk of colorectal cancer. In overall, the
manuscript was well-structured and suitable for international journals. With all due respect,
some observations and considerations are noted as follows:
Introduction:
Linguistic and grammatical checks are necessary.
The authors may need to provide a clearer explanation relationship between low or high
birth weight and colorectal cancer (CRC). Specifically, they could hypothesize major possible
mechanisms to explain the potential relationship between birth weight and later development
of CRC.
Methods Section:
The "Cochrane Handbook" should be cited when describing the systematic review/meta-analysis
(SR/MA) methodology.
It should be stated which major guideline (e.g. MOOSE or PRISMA) was followed to conduct
this SR/MA.
The search strategy should be reproducible; I recommend the authors add the exact search terms/
keywords used, in a supplementary table (appendix).
The inclusion criteria specify only case-control and "prospective cohort" studies; however,
retrospective studies (e.g. Sandhu et al.) appear to also be included. This discrepancy should
be clarified.
The study quality assessment refers to "original authors" at the end, but this  was not properly
defined earlier.
The authors should check journal instructions to determine whether registration in databases
such as PROSPERO is required.
Results:
Figure 1 could be better organized to more clearly display the number of studies excluded
with reasons for exclusion (e.g. insufficiency in exposure/outcome assessment, study design,
statistical).
Table 1 should include study design and references for each study. Additionally, a new column
listing major adjusted factors would aid interpretation.
Discussion:
This section is well-written with suitable comparative examples.
The authors could add a paragraph discussing potential mechanisms linking birth weight to later
CRC risk, such as influences of hormone levels or microbiome composition and/or inflammatory
processes.
Given the low heterogeneity among studies, the authors should attempt to explain
inconsistencies in results regarding the association between birth weight and CRC across
different studies.
In summary, the comments aim to strengthen clarity, completeness and rigor of reporting to
improve the overall quality and impact of the manuscript.
I hope these comments will be helpful
assistant