Title: A Systematic Review of the Epidemiology and Risk Factors for Severity and Recurrence
of Hypertriglyceridemia-Induced Acute Pancreatitis
Version: 0 Date: 06 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I have reviewed your manuscript on hypertriglyceridemia-induced acute pancreatitis. While the
topic is undoubtedly of interest, I found several critical issues that need to be addressed to meet
the standards of a systematic review and meta-analysis.
1. The abstract lacks the concise synthesis of data typical in meta-analyses. It should reference
the statistical analyses performed, including p-values, measures of heterogeneity (e.g., I²), and
effect sizes with confidence intervals. The results presentation should be more quantitative and
less discursive.
2. The introduction should clearly articulate the hypotheses addressed by the study. Unlike
observational studies, systematic reviews require a well-defined hypothesis as it guides the entire
review process.
3. The search strategy needs more detail, particularly the inclusion and exclusion criteria used
to define hypertriglyceridemia-induced acute pancreatitis (HTG-AP) in the reviewed studies.
Moreover, provide comprehensive details on the data extraction methods and the tools used for
bias assessment in the methods section.
4. The results section should present a more robust quantitative synthesis, including
heterogeneity assessments and statistical comparisons using p-values.  A deeper analysis of
regional and temporal differences should be included, potentially through subgroup analyses or
meta-regressions.
5. The discussion should elaborate on the implications of the findings and include a critical
assessment of the study’s limitations in the context of existing literature.
Title: A Systematic Review of the Epidemiology and Risk Factors for Severity and Recurrence
of Hypertriglyceridemia-Induced Acute Pancreatitis
Version: 0 Date: 06 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I have reviewed your manuscript on hypertriglyceridemia-induced acute pancreatitis. While the
topic is undoubtedly of interest, I found several critical issues that need to be addressed to meet
the standards of a systematic review and meta-analysis.
1. The abstract lacks the concise synthesis of data typical in meta-analyses. It should reference
the statistical analyses performed, including p-values, measures of heterogeneity (e.g., I²), and
effect sizes with confidence intervals. The results presentation should be more quantitative and
less discursive.
2. The introduction should clearly articulate the hypotheses addressed by the study. Unlike
observational studies, systematic reviews require a well-defined hypothesis as it guides the entire
review process.
3. The search strategy needs more detail, particularly the inclusion and exclusion criteria used
to define hypertriglyceridemia-induced acute pancreatitis (HTG-AP) in the reviewed studies.
Moreover, provide comprehensive details on the data extraction methods and the tools used for
bias assessment in the methods section.
4. The results section should present a more robust quantitative synthesis, including
heterogeneity assessments and statistical comparisons using p-values.  A deeper analysis of
regional and temporal differences should be included, potentially through subgroup analyses or
meta-regressions.
5. The discussion should elaborate on the implications of the findings and include a critical
assessment of the study’s limitations in the context of existing literature.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: A Systematic Review of the Epidemiology and Risk Factors for Severity and Recurrence
of Hypertriglyceridemia-Induced Acute Pancreatitis
Version: 0 Date: 06 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I have reviewed your manuscript on hypertriglyceridemia-induced acute pancreatitis. While the
topic is undoubtedly of interest, I found several critical issues that need to be addressed to meet
the standards of a systematic review and meta-analysis.
1. The abstract lacks the concise synthesis of data typical in meta-analyses. It should reference
the statistical analyses performed, including p-values, measures of heterogeneity (e.g., I²), and
effect sizes with confidence intervals. The results presentation should be more quantitative and
less discursive.
2. The introduction should clearly articulate the hypotheses addressed by the study. Unlike
observational studies, systematic reviews require a well-defined hypothesis as it guides the entire
review process.
3. The search strategy needs more detail, particularly the inclusion and exclusion criteria used
to define hypertriglyceridemia-induced acute pancreatitis (HTG-AP) in the reviewed studies.
Moreover, provide comprehensive details on the data extraction methods and the tools used for
bias assessment in the methods section.
4. The results section should present a more robust quantitative synthesis, including
heterogeneity assessments and statistical comparisons using p-values.  A deeper analysis of
regional and temporal differences should be included, potentially through subgroup analyses or
meta-regressions.
5. The discussion should elaborate on the implications of the findings and include a critical
assessment of the study’s limitations in the context of existing literature.
assistant