Title: Efficacy of Probiotic, Prebiotic, and Synbiotics Supplements in individuals with Anemia:
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Version: 1 Date: 13 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors, using a meta-analysis, have assessed the efficacy of probiotic, and prebiotic
supplements in patients with anemia:
1) The introduction is good but should be written with a more regular structure.
2) The search date should be updated.
3) Search strategy: what is your approach in searching for gray literature?
4) Data screening and selection should have kappa statistics between the authors.
5) Although you make appropriate assessments of study quality, you are not using study quality
to report the results. The study quality should be used to provide a feel for whether your
results derive from low-quality evidence, moderate quality, etc. Cochrane suggests the use of
the GRADE approach to capture this element.
6) You can consider using newer methods like the Hartung-Knapp adjustment.
7) Please report the confidence intervals for I2.
8) Using I2 is a measure of consistency between studies. Provide tau2 as an absolute measure
for heterogeneity between studies.
9) Results were duplicated in the text and tables/figures. I suggest avoiding any duplication to
improve the readability of the manuscript.
10) The discussion should be organized around arguments avoiding simply describing details
without providing much meaning. A real discussion should also link the findings of the study
to theory and literature. A good discussion should be more solid in the attempt to explain the
observed associations, please revise this section.
11) Explain more about the current limitations, and also explain more about what actions you
took to overcome these limitations
12) The clinical effects of this study should be explained more to the reader.
13) Figures and figure legends require a greater level of detail. Statistics should be included
where appropriate.
14) Some Figures are a bit blurry, please provide higher-resolution images
15) I suggest to re-write the conclusion to be more clear and concise. This is important.
16) I note the authors have reported results according to the PRISMA checklist. Please include
a copy of the PRISMA checklist (with page numbers noted for each section) as a supplementary
appendix, as required by PRISMA.
17) Please specify whether you calculated R or left it as a constant. In the case of calculation,
mention the formula.
Title: Efficacy of Probiotic, Prebiotic, and Synbiotics Supplements in individuals with Anemia:
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Version: 1 Date: 13 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors, using a meta-analysis, have assessed the efficacy of probiotic, and prebiotic
supplements in patients with anemia:
1) The introduction is good but should be written with a more regular structure.
2) The search date should be updated.
3) Search strategy: what is your approach in searching for gray literature?
4) Data screening and selection should have kappa statistics between the authors.
5) Although you make appropriate assessments of study quality, you are not using study quality
to report the results. The study quality should be used to provide a feel for whether your
results derive from low-quality evidence, moderate quality, etc. Cochrane suggests the use of
the GRADE approach to capture this element.
6) You can consider using newer methods like the Hartung-Knapp adjustment.
7) Please report the confidence intervals for I2.
8) Using I2 is a measure of consistency between studies. Provide tau2 as an absolute measure
for heterogeneity between studies.
9) Results were duplicated in the text and tables/figures. I suggest avoiding any duplication to
improve the readability of the manuscript.
10) The discussion should be organized around arguments avoiding simply describing details
without providing much meaning. A real discussion should also link the findings of the study
to theory and literature. A good discussion should be more solid in the attempt to explain the
observed associations, please revise this section.
11) Explain more about the current limitations, and also explain more about what actions you
took to overcome these limitations
12) The clinical effects of this study should be explained more to the reader.
13) Figures and figure legends require a greater level of detail. Statistics should be included
where appropriate.
14) Some Figures are a bit blurry, please provide higher-resolution images
15) I suggest to re-write the conclusion to be more clear and concise. This is important.
16) I note the authors have reported results according to the PRISMA checklist. Please include
a copy of the PRISMA checklist (with page numbers noted for each section) as a supplementary
appendix, as required by PRISMA.
17) Please specify whether you calculated R or left it as a constant. In the case of calculation,
mention the formula.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Efficacy of Probiotic, Prebiotic, and Synbiotics Supplements in individuals with Anemia:
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Version: 1 Date: 13 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors, using a meta-analysis, have assessed the efficacy of probiotic, and prebiotic
supplements in patients with anemia:
1) The introduction is good but should be written with a more regular structure.
2) The search date should be updated.
3) Search strategy: what is your approach in searching for gray literature?
4) Data screening and selection should have kappa statistics between the authors.
5) Although you make appropriate assessments of study quality, you are not using study quality
to report the results. The study quality should be used to provide a feel for whether your
results derive from low-quality evidence, moderate quality, etc. Cochrane suggests the use of
the GRADE approach to capture this element.
6) You can consider using newer methods like the Hartung-Knapp adjustment.
7) Please report the confidence intervals for I2.
8) Using I2 is a measure of consistency between studies. Provide tau2 as an absolute measure
for heterogeneity between studies.
9) Results were duplicated in the text and tables/figures. I suggest avoiding any duplication to
improve the readability of the manuscript.
10) The discussion should be organized around arguments avoiding simply describing details
without providing much meaning. A real discussion should also link the findings of the study
to theory and literature. A good discussion should be more solid in the attempt to explain the
observed associations, please revise this section.
11) Explain more about the current limitations, and also explain more about what actions you
took to overcome these limitations
12) The clinical effects of this study should be explained more to the reader.
13) Figures and figure legends require a greater level of detail. Statistics should be included
where appropriate.
14) Some Figures are a bit blurry, please provide higher-resolution images
15) I suggest to re-write the conclusion to be more clear and concise. This is important.
16) I note the authors have reported results according to the PRISMA checklist. Please include
a copy of the PRISMA checklist (with page numbers noted for each section) as a supplementary
appendix, as required by PRISMA.
17) Please specify whether you calculated R or left it as a constant. In the case of calculation,
mention the formula.
assistant