Title: Association between the immune-inflammation index and the severity and clinical
outcomes of patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 07 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for the opportunity to review this we’manuscript titled “Association between immune-
inflammation index and the severity and clinical outcomes of patients with inflammatory bowel
disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis”, which sought to ……. These are my comments:
Title:
Please could the authors refer to this term in the correct way - as ‘Systemic immune-
inflammatory index’, which is often abbreviated as SII.
Introduction:
1. Lines 105-107 - The authors should please correct this statement, as Elgenidy et al 2024
conducted a meta-analysis on this subject. They could probably state that the present study ‘seeks
to update the evidence synthesis on same topic…….’
2. For lines 86-90, the authors should add a citation for the SIIs listed.
Methods:
1. The authors should explain why their search terms and search strategies seem apparently not
broad enough to yield the modest amount of papers?????
For instance why use lymphocytes, lymphoid rather than ‘WBC’, ‘immune-inflammatory
index’, or even include neutrophils and platelets in the search if you must name the individual
white cells.
Secondly, SCOPUS database was omitted in your search strategy when it had the largest yield
among all databases in a similar meta-analysis published in 2024 (Elgenidy A, Alomari O,
Emad T, Kamal SK, Al Ghanam IE, Sherif A, Al-kurdi MA, Helal AA, Omar YM, Ramadan
MR. Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index: unveiling the Diagnostic Potential in Ulcerative
Colitis through a Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Gastroenterology &
Endoscopy. 2024 Oct 23).
2. Also, could you provide the name of the third reviewer who intervenes in cases of any dispute
between the two reviewers doing data extraction?
Results:
1. The authors should please be consistent with the use of numbers. Page 10 (3.3.4) paragraph
237 - should read ‘Two case-control studies…..’ and not ‘2 case-control studies….’
2. Line 203 page 9, the authors should correct the OR result - it is ‘1.18’ not 1.16 (according
to Figure 2B).
3. Section 3.7 (Page 12), the authors should clearly outline the Egger’s test result data in this
section, before providing the necessary interpretation as it relates to publication bias.
Discussion:
1. The 1st paragraph here should provide a concise summary of the study findings before
engaging in any critical discussion involving other articles.
2. I think it’s also imperative that the authors bring the Elgenidy et al 2024 paper into the
discussion section and relate its findings with those of their current study.
Best wishes,
Dr Ralph Udeh
Title: Association between the immune-inflammation index and the severity and clinical
outcomes of patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 07 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for the opportunity to review this we’manuscript titled “Association between immune-
inflammation index and the severity and clinical outcomes of patients with inflammatory bowel
disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis”, which sought to ……. These are my comments:
Title:
Please could the authors refer to this term in the correct way - as ‘Systemic immune-
inflammatory index’, which is often abbreviated as SII.
Introduction:
1. Lines 105-107 - The authors should please correct this statement, as Elgenidy et al 2024
conducted a meta-analysis on this subject. They could probably state that the present study ‘seeks
to update the evidence synthesis on same topic…….’
2. For lines 86-90, the authors should add a citation for the SIIs listed.
Methods:
1. The authors should explain why their search terms and search strategies seem apparently not
broad enough to yield the modest amount of papers?????
For instance why use lymphocytes, lymphoid rather than ‘WBC’, ‘immune-inflammatory
index’, or even include neutrophils and platelets in the search if you must name the individual
white cells.
Secondly, SCOPUS database was omitted in your search strategy when it had the largest yield
among all databases in a similar meta-analysis published in 2024 (Elgenidy A, Alomari O,
Emad T, Kamal SK, Al Ghanam IE, Sherif A, Al-kurdi MA, Helal AA, Omar YM, Ramadan
MR. Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index: unveiling the Diagnostic Potential in Ulcerative
Colitis through a Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Gastroenterology &
Endoscopy. 2024 Oct 23).
2. Also, could you provide the name of the third reviewer who intervenes in cases of any dispute
between the two reviewers doing data extraction?
Results:
1. The authors should please be consistent with the use of numbers. Page 10 (3.3.4) paragraph
237 - should read ‘Two case-control studies…..’ and not ‘2 case-control studies….’
2. Line 203 page 9, the authors should correct the OR result - it is ‘1.18’ not 1.16 (according
to Figure 2B).
3. Section 3.7 (Page 12), the authors should clearly outline the Egger’s test result data in this
section, before providing the necessary interpretation as it relates to publication bias.
Discussion:
1. The 1st paragraph here should provide a concise summary of the study findings before
engaging in any critical discussion involving other articles.
2. I think it’s also imperative that the authors bring the Elgenidy et al 2024 paper into the
discussion section and relate its findings with those of their current study.
Best wishes,
Dr Ralph Udeh
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Association between the immune-inflammation index and the severity and clinical
outcomes of patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 07 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for the opportunity to review this we’manuscript titled “Association between immune-
inflammation index and the severity and clinical outcomes of patients with inflammatory bowel
disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis”, which sought to ……. These are my comments:
Title:
Please could the authors refer to this term in the correct way - as ‘Systemic immune-
inflammatory index’, which is often abbreviated as SII.
Introduction:
1. Lines 105-107 - The authors should please correct this statement, as Elgenidy et al 2024
conducted a meta-analysis on this subject. They could probably state that the present study ‘seeks
to update the evidence synthesis on same topic…….’
2. For lines 86-90, the authors should add a citation for the SIIs listed.
Methods:
1. The authors should explain why their search terms and search strategies seem apparently not
broad enough to yield the modest amount of papers?????
For instance why use lymphocytes, lymphoid rather than ‘WBC’, ‘immune-inflammatory
index’, or even include neutrophils and platelets in the search if you must name the individual
white cells.
Secondly, SCOPUS database was omitted in your search strategy when it had the largest yield
among all databases in a similar meta-analysis published in 2024 (Elgenidy A, Alomari O,
Emad T, Kamal SK, Al Ghanam IE, Sherif A, Al-kurdi MA, Helal AA, Omar YM, Ramadan
MR. Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index: unveiling the Diagnostic Potential in Ulcerative
Colitis through a Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Gastroenterology &
Endoscopy. 2024 Oct 23).
2. Also, could you provide the name of the third reviewer who intervenes in cases of any dispute
between the two reviewers doing data extraction?
Results:
1. The authors should please be consistent with the use of numbers. Page 10 (3.3.4) paragraph
237 - should read ‘Two case-control studies…..’ and not ‘2 case-control studies….’
2. Line 203 page 9, the authors should correct the OR result - it is ‘1.18’ not 1.16 (according
to Figure 2B).
3. Section 3.7 (Page 12), the authors should clearly outline the Egger’s test result data in this
section, before providing the necessary interpretation as it relates to publication bias.
Discussion:
1. The 1st paragraph here should provide a concise summary of the study findings before
engaging in any critical discussion involving other articles.
2. I think it’s also imperative that the authors bring the Elgenidy et al 2024 paper into the
discussion section and relate its findings with those of their current study.
Best wishes,
Dr Ralph Udeh
assistant