Title: Cruciferous Vegetables Intake and Risk of Colon Cancer: A Dose-Response Meta-
Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 14 May 2025
Reviewer:  Ivan Perez Neri
Reviewer's report:
Manuscript entitled "Cruciferous Vegetables Intake and Risk of Colonic Neoplasms:A
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" is aimed to "systematically synthesize existing literature
on the association between CV consumption and CC risk".
Major comments
- Search algorithms should be reported exactly as they were run on each consulted database
- It should be clearly justified why the authors limited inclusion for studies to Cohort and case-
control designs (1.2 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria)
- Using an effect measure (odds ratios (OR) or relative risks (RR)  along with 95% CI, see
1.2 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria) as an inclusion criterion is uncommon and might not be
recommended. This should be clearly justified
- Authors should elaborate on what exactly "Studies with insufficient data" are (see 1.2 Inclusion
and Exclusion Criteria)
- Authors should justify why no Risk of Bias assessment was applied
- Authors state that "For moderately diverse cases (defined as I2 values between 30% and 60%),
the random-effects model was also employed due to its careful methodology" (see 1.4 Statistical
Analysis), but this was not specified in the review protocol. The rationale for this decision should
be convincingly justified
- Authors must explain what was considered "unnecessary" when saying that "Following the
screening of abstracts and titles, 184 records were removed as unnecessary"
- Authors should provide a full list of excluded studies with reasons for exclusion of each study
Minor comments
- It is stated that MeSH terms were included in the search strategy (see 1.1 Search Strategy)
which works for PubMed, but Emtree terms for Embase are not mentioned although this database
was consulted
Title: Cruciferous Vegetables Intake and Risk of Colon Cancer: A Dose-Response Meta-
Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 14 May 2025
Reviewer:  Ivan Perez Neri
Reviewer's report:
Manuscript entitled "Cruciferous Vegetables Intake and Risk of Colonic Neoplasms:A
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" is aimed to "systematically synthesize existing literature
on the association between CV consumption and CC risk".
Major comments
- Search algorithms should be reported exactly as they were run on each consulted database
- It should be clearly justified why the authors limited inclusion for studies to Cohort and case-
control designs (1.2 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria)
- Using an effect measure (odds ratios (OR) or relative risks (RR)  along with 95% CI, see
1.2 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria) as an inclusion criterion is uncommon and might not be
recommended. This should be clearly justified
- Authors should elaborate on what exactly "Studies with insufficient data" are (see 1.2 Inclusion
and Exclusion Criteria)
- Authors should justify why no Risk of Bias assessment was applied
- Authors state that "For moderately diverse cases (defined as I2 values between 30% and 60%),
the random-effects model was also employed due to its careful methodology" (see 1.4 Statistical
Analysis), but this was not specified in the review protocol. The rationale for this decision should
be convincingly justified
- Authors must explain what was considered "unnecessary" when saying that "Following the
screening of abstracts and titles, 184 records were removed as unnecessary"
- Authors should provide a full list of excluded studies with reasons for exclusion of each study
Minor comments
- It is stated that MeSH terms were included in the search strategy (see 1.1 Search Strategy)
which works for PubMed, but Emtree terms for Embase are not mentioned although this database
was consulted
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Cruciferous Vegetables Intake and Risk of Colon Cancer: A Dose-Response Meta-
Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 14 May 2025
Reviewer:  Ivan Perez Neri
Reviewer's report:
Manuscript entitled "Cruciferous Vegetables Intake and Risk of Colonic Neoplasms:A
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" is aimed to "systematically synthesize existing literature
on the association between CV consumption and CC risk".
Major comments
- Search algorithms should be reported exactly as they were run on each consulted database
- It should be clearly justified why the authors limited inclusion for studies to Cohort and case-
control designs (1.2 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria)
- Using an effect measure (odds ratios (OR) or relative risks (RR)  along with 95% CI, see
1.2 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria) as an inclusion criterion is uncommon and might not be
recommended. This should be clearly justified
- Authors should elaborate on what exactly "Studies with insufficient data" are (see 1.2 Inclusion
and Exclusion Criteria)
- Authors should justify why no Risk of Bias assessment was applied
- Authors state that "For moderately diverse cases (defined as I2 values between 30% and 60%),
the random-effects model was also employed due to its careful methodology" (see 1.4 Statistical
Analysis), but this was not specified in the review protocol. The rationale for this decision should
be convincingly justified
- Authors must explain what was considered "unnecessary" when saying that "Following the
screening of abstracts and titles, 184 records were removed as unnecessary"
- Authors should provide a full list of excluded studies with reasons for exclusion of each study
Minor comments
- It is stated that MeSH terms were included in the search strategy (see 1.1 Search Strategy)
which works for PubMed, but Emtree terms for Embase are not mentioned although this database
was consulted
assistant