Title:  Effectiveness of bevacizumab in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a
systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 12 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
I appreciate the opportunity to review the manuscript titled "Effectiveness of Bevacizumab in the
Treatment of Advanced Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" submitted
to BMC Gastroenterology. The authors have embarked on a commendable effort to conduct a
meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy of bevacizumab
in treating metastatic colorectal cancer. However, there are several concerns, potentially impact
the integrity of the entire study
Introduction and Rationale: The introduction lacks a clear demonstration of the study's necessity.
While the authors briefly touch upon the significance of bevacizumab in colorectal cancer
treatment, they fall short in justifying the primary objective of the study – performing a
systematic review and meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Bevacizumab in the Treatment
of Advanced Colorectal Cancer. It is crucial to explicitly state the rationale for this review,
especially given the existence of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses on related
topics. Notably, the authors should clarify how their study contributes uniquely to the existing
body of knowledge in light of publications like:
- The effectiveness and safety of bevacizumab versus cetuximab in the treatment of colorectal
cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35750983/
- Chemotherapy plus panitumumab/cetuximab versus chemotherapy plus bevacizumab
in wild-type KRAS/RAS metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36374121/
- Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Monoclonal Antibodies (Bevacizumab, Cetuximab,
and Panitumumab) in Combination with Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30499082/
- Chemotherapy plus Panitumumab Versus Chemotherapy plus Bevacizumab in Metastatic
Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-analysis https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29323221/
- Anti#angiogenic therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer https://www.cochranelibrary.com/
cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD005392.pub3/full
- Second#line systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer https://
www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006875.pub3/full
Database Selection and Bias: The authors systematically searched PubMed, Medline, and
Cochrane Library. However, it is crucial to note that PubMed is primarily a search engine for the
Medline bibliographic database. To ensure a comprehensive literature review, the authors should
include at least one additional database from the Embase or Scopus group. The manuscript
should explicitly acknowledge the limitation arising from the choice of databases, emphasizing
the potential bias introduced.
Best regards,
Title:  Effectiveness of bevacizumab in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a
systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 12 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
I appreciate the opportunity to review the manuscript titled "Effectiveness of Bevacizumab in the
Treatment of Advanced Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" submitted
to BMC Gastroenterology. The authors have embarked on a commendable effort to conduct a
meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy of bevacizumab
in treating metastatic colorectal cancer. However, there are several concerns, potentially impact
the integrity of the entire study
Introduction and Rationale: The introduction lacks a clear demonstration of the study's necessity.
While the authors briefly touch upon the significance of bevacizumab in colorectal cancer
treatment, they fall short in justifying the primary objective of the study – performing a
systematic review and meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Bevacizumab in the Treatment
of Advanced Colorectal Cancer. It is crucial to explicitly state the rationale for this review,
especially given the existence of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses on related
topics. Notably, the authors should clarify how their study contributes uniquely to the existing
body of knowledge in light of publications like:
- The effectiveness and safety of bevacizumab versus cetuximab in the treatment of colorectal
cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35750983/
- Chemotherapy plus panitumumab/cetuximab versus chemotherapy plus bevacizumab
in wild-type KRAS/RAS metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36374121/
- Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Monoclonal Antibodies (Bevacizumab, Cetuximab,
and Panitumumab) in Combination with Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30499082/
- Chemotherapy plus Panitumumab Versus Chemotherapy plus Bevacizumab in Metastatic
Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-analysis https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29323221/
- Anti#angiogenic therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer https://www.cochranelibrary.com/
cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD005392.pub3/full
- Second#line systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer https://
www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006875.pub3/full
Database Selection and Bias: The authors systematically searched PubMed, Medline, and
Cochrane Library. However, it is crucial to note that PubMed is primarily a search engine for the
Medline bibliographic database. To ensure a comprehensive literature review, the authors should
include at least one additional database from the Embase or Scopus group. The manuscript
should explicitly acknowledge the limitation arising from the choice of databases, emphasizing
the potential bias introduced.
Best regards,
Please review this paper.
user
Title:  Effectiveness of bevacizumab in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a
systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 12 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
I appreciate the opportunity to review the manuscript titled "Effectiveness of Bevacizumab in the
Treatment of Advanced Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" submitted
to BMC Gastroenterology. The authors have embarked on a commendable effort to conduct a
meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy of bevacizumab
in treating metastatic colorectal cancer. However, there are several concerns, potentially impact
the integrity of the entire study
Introduction and Rationale: The introduction lacks a clear demonstration of the study's necessity.
While the authors briefly touch upon the significance of bevacizumab in colorectal cancer
treatment, they fall short in justifying the primary objective of the study – performing a
systematic review and meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Bevacizumab in the Treatment
of Advanced Colorectal Cancer. It is crucial to explicitly state the rationale for this review,
especially given the existence of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses on related
topics. Notably, the authors should clarify how their study contributes uniquely to the existing
body of knowledge in light of publications like:
- The effectiveness and safety of bevacizumab versus cetuximab in the treatment of colorectal
cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35750983/
- Chemotherapy plus panitumumab/cetuximab versus chemotherapy plus bevacizumab
in wild-type KRAS/RAS metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36374121/
- Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Monoclonal Antibodies (Bevacizumab, Cetuximab,
and Panitumumab) in Combination with Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30499082/
- Chemotherapy plus Panitumumab Versus Chemotherapy plus Bevacizumab in Metastatic
Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-analysis https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29323221/
- Anti#angiogenic therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer https://www.cochranelibrary.com/
cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD005392.pub3/full
- Second#line systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer https://
www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006875.pub3/full
Database Selection and Bias: The authors systematically searched PubMed, Medline, and
Cochrane Library. However, it is crucial to note that PubMed is primarily a search engine for the
Medline bibliographic database. To ensure a comprehensive literature review, the authors should
include at least one additional database from the Embase or Scopus group. The manuscript
should explicitly acknowledge the limitation arising from the choice of databases, emphasizing
the potential bias introduced.
Best regards,
assistant