Title: Risk factors for unplanned 31-day readmission after surgery for colorectal cancer Patients:
a meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 14 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, please address the following points below
-Although the background highlights the challenges in CRC prevention and treatment, it could
benefit from a brief mention of current strategies or efforts aimed at reducing readmissions. This
would offer insight into where the gaps lie in existing practices and how the current study could
contribute to these ongoing efforts.
-The background could better link the general discussion of complications and risk factors in
CRC surgery to the meta-analysis's aim. While it mentions the need for identifying risk factors,
a more direct transition to how the study will address this could strengthen the flow.
-While the statistical approach is solid, it would be helpful to mention how heterogeneity
will be assessed more specifically. For example, explaining how I² values will be interpreted
could improve clarity for readers unfamiliar with the metric. More detail on how substantial
heterogeneity (I² > 50%) might affect the interpretation of combined results would also be useful.
-While the quality assessment through the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale is well explained, it would
be beneficial to provide more details on how potential biases in the included studies (e.g.,
publication bias or selective reporting) will be addressed. This could include a plan for
conducting sensitivity analyses or funnel plot assessments to investigate publication bias.
-While the discussion presents the findings in a clear and well-structured manner, it would
benefit from a more explicit acknowledgment of the study’s limitations. For example, there
could be more discussion on the heterogeneity of the included studies and any potential biases
(e.g., publication bias, study design differences).
-There could also be more detailed commentary on the quality of the included studies and
how this might affect the robustness of the conclusions drawn. For example, were there any
challenges in assessing the quality of the studies or any gaps in the data?
-While risk factors are identified, there is limited exploration of the underlying mechanisms by
which these factors contribute to readmissions. For example, the relationship between blood
transfusions and readmissions is briefly mentioned but could benefit from a deeper explanation
of the physiological processes involved (e.g., immune suppression, infection risk, and delayed
recovery).
-Similarly, expanding on the role of tumor location and stoma creation in readmissions could
provide more insight into why these factors are particularly significant, helping to guide clinical
interventions.
Title: Risk factors for unplanned 31-day readmission after surgery for colorectal cancer Patients:
a meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 14 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, please address the following points below
-Although the background highlights the challenges in CRC prevention and treatment, it could
benefit from a brief mention of current strategies or efforts aimed at reducing readmissions. This
would offer insight into where the gaps lie in existing practices and how the current study could
contribute to these ongoing efforts.
-The background could better link the general discussion of complications and risk factors in
CRC surgery to the meta-analysis's aim. While it mentions the need for identifying risk factors,
a more direct transition to how the study will address this could strengthen the flow.
-While the statistical approach is solid, it would be helpful to mention how heterogeneity
will be assessed more specifically. For example, explaining how I² values will be interpreted
could improve clarity for readers unfamiliar with the metric. More detail on how substantial
heterogeneity (I² > 50%) might affect the interpretation of combined results would also be useful.
-While the quality assessment through the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale is well explained, it would
be beneficial to provide more details on how potential biases in the included studies (e.g.,
publication bias or selective reporting) will be addressed. This could include a plan for
conducting sensitivity analyses or funnel plot assessments to investigate publication bias.
-While the discussion presents the findings in a clear and well-structured manner, it would
benefit from a more explicit acknowledgment of the study’s limitations. For example, there
could be more discussion on the heterogeneity of the included studies and any potential biases
(e.g., publication bias, study design differences).
-There could also be more detailed commentary on the quality of the included studies and
how this might affect the robustness of the conclusions drawn. For example, were there any
challenges in assessing the quality of the studies or any gaps in the data?
-While risk factors are identified, there is limited exploration of the underlying mechanisms by
which these factors contribute to readmissions. For example, the relationship between blood
transfusions and readmissions is briefly mentioned but could benefit from a deeper explanation
of the physiological processes involved (e.g., immune suppression, infection risk, and delayed
recovery).
-Similarly, expanding on the role of tumor location and stoma creation in readmissions could
provide more insight into why these factors are particularly significant, helping to guide clinical
interventions.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Risk factors for unplanned 31-day readmission after surgery for colorectal cancer Patients:
a meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 14 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, please address the following points below
-Although the background highlights the challenges in CRC prevention and treatment, it could
benefit from a brief mention of current strategies or efforts aimed at reducing readmissions. This
would offer insight into where the gaps lie in existing practices and how the current study could
contribute to these ongoing efforts.
-The background could better link the general discussion of complications and risk factors in
CRC surgery to the meta-analysis's aim. While it mentions the need for identifying risk factors,
a more direct transition to how the study will address this could strengthen the flow.
-While the statistical approach is solid, it would be helpful to mention how heterogeneity
will be assessed more specifically. For example, explaining how I² values will be interpreted
could improve clarity for readers unfamiliar with the metric. More detail on how substantial
heterogeneity (I² > 50%) might affect the interpretation of combined results would also be useful.
-While the quality assessment through the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale is well explained, it would
be beneficial to provide more details on how potential biases in the included studies (e.g.,
publication bias or selective reporting) will be addressed. This could include a plan for
conducting sensitivity analyses or funnel plot assessments to investigate publication bias.
-While the discussion presents the findings in a clear and well-structured manner, it would
benefit from a more explicit acknowledgment of the study’s limitations. For example, there
could be more discussion on the heterogeneity of the included studies and any potential biases
(e.g., publication bias, study design differences).
-There could also be more detailed commentary on the quality of the included studies and
how this might affect the robustness of the conclusions drawn. For example, were there any
challenges in assessing the quality of the studies or any gaps in the data?
-While risk factors are identified, there is limited exploration of the underlying mechanisms by
which these factors contribute to readmissions. For example, the relationship between blood
transfusions and readmissions is briefly mentioned but could benefit from a deeper explanation
of the physiological processes involved (e.g., immune suppression, infection risk, and delayed
recovery).
-Similarly, expanding on the role of tumor location and stoma creation in readmissions could
provide more insight into why these factors are particularly significant, helping to guide clinical
interventions.
assistant