Title: Medical radiation exposure in inflammatory bowel disease: an updated meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 13 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
No - there are minor issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Regarding responses to my previous comments:
1) the authors should report in the manuscript that was not complete, as they said in the answer
2) also for this point they should report this information in the manuscript
3) what I meant was: in paper after 2012, are there included in the count CT for IBD performed
before 2012? I'm not worried about other diseases
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
as stated above
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
no
Title: Medical radiation exposure in inflammatory bowel disease: an updated meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 13 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
No - there are minor issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Regarding responses to my previous comments:
1) the authors should report in the manuscript that was not complete, as they said in the answer
2) also for this point they should report this information in the manuscript
3) what I meant was: in paper after 2012, are there included in the count CT for IBD performed
before 2012? I'm not worried about other diseases
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
as stated above
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
no
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Medical radiation exposure in inflammatory bowel disease: an updated meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 13 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
No - there are minor issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Regarding responses to my previous comments:
1) the authors should report in the manuscript that was not complete, as they said in the answer
2) also for this point they should report this information in the manuscript
3) what I meant was: in paper after 2012, are there included in the count CT for IBD performed
before 2012? I'm not worried about other diseases
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
as stated above
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
no
assistant