Title: Global prevalence of Fusobacterium nucleatum and Bacteroides fragilis in patients with
colorectal cancer: an overview of case reports/case series and meta-analysis of prevalence
studies
Version: 3 Date: 07 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for the opportunity to re-review this manuscript titled “Global prevalence of
Fusobacterium nucleatum and Bacteroides fragilis in patients with colorectal cancer: an
overview of case reports/case series and meta-analysis of prevalence studies”. Thanks to the
authors for their great responses (in a, b and 1st part of c). Just a few more comments, as Egger’s/
Begg’s test reporting/interpretation weren’t satisfactory (in 2nd part of c and d).
1. Regarding Egger’s test, the authors should please state what level of p-value will be considered
as publication bias in the ‘meta-analysis part of the methods section’. This will facilitate a more
objective interpretation of the presented data.
2a. The authors’ interpretation fell short of the standard way of interpreting these data - please
interpret based on the p-value obtained as was stated  in the (methods) statistical analysis
approach (as in 1 above).
2b. A better interpretation will state how for instance the “observed asymmetry in the funnel
plot which indicates some publication bias
Or
Observed symmetry in the funnel plot which indicates no publication bias
is supported by the p-value of Egger’s test being so so value (in view of 2a above)”. Please check
previous publications on funnel plot reporting or otherwise please consult ‘Cochrane handbook’
on meta-analysis reporting.
Best wishes,
Dr Ralph Udeh
Title: Global prevalence of Fusobacterium nucleatum and Bacteroides fragilis in patients with
colorectal cancer: an overview of case reports/case series and meta-analysis of prevalence
studies
Version: 3 Date: 07 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for the opportunity to re-review this manuscript titled “Global prevalence of
Fusobacterium nucleatum and Bacteroides fragilis in patients with colorectal cancer: an
overview of case reports/case series and meta-analysis of prevalence studies”. Thanks to the
authors for their great responses (in a, b and 1st part of c). Just a few more comments, as Egger’s/
Begg’s test reporting/interpretation weren’t satisfactory (in 2nd part of c and d).
1. Regarding Egger’s test, the authors should please state what level of p-value will be considered
as publication bias in the ‘meta-analysis part of the methods section’. This will facilitate a more
objective interpretation of the presented data.
2a. The authors’ interpretation fell short of the standard way of interpreting these data - please
interpret based on the p-value obtained as was stated  in the (methods) statistical analysis
approach (as in 1 above).
2b. A better interpretation will state how for instance the “observed asymmetry in the funnel
plot which indicates some publication bias
Or
Observed symmetry in the funnel plot which indicates no publication bias
is supported by the p-value of Egger’s test being so so value (in view of 2a above)”. Please check
previous publications on funnel plot reporting or otherwise please consult ‘Cochrane handbook’
on meta-analysis reporting.
Best wishes,
Dr Ralph Udeh
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Global prevalence of Fusobacterium nucleatum and Bacteroides fragilis in patients with
colorectal cancer: an overview of case reports/case series and meta-analysis of prevalence
studies
Version: 3 Date: 07 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for the opportunity to re-review this manuscript titled “Global prevalence of
Fusobacterium nucleatum and Bacteroides fragilis in patients with colorectal cancer: an
overview of case reports/case series and meta-analysis of prevalence studies”. Thanks to the
authors for their great responses (in a, b and 1st part of c). Just a few more comments, as Egger’s/
Begg’s test reporting/interpretation weren’t satisfactory (in 2nd part of c and d).
1. Regarding Egger’s test, the authors should please state what level of p-value will be considered
as publication bias in the ‘meta-analysis part of the methods section’. This will facilitate a more
objective interpretation of the presented data.
2a. The authors’ interpretation fell short of the standard way of interpreting these data - please
interpret based on the p-value obtained as was stated  in the (methods) statistical analysis
approach (as in 1 above).
2b. A better interpretation will state how for instance the “observed asymmetry in the funnel
plot which indicates some publication bias
Or
Observed symmetry in the funnel plot which indicates no publication bias
is supported by the p-value of Egger’s test being so so value (in view of 2a above)”. Please check
previous publications on funnel plot reporting or otherwise please consult ‘Cochrane handbook’
on meta-analysis reporting.
Best wishes,
Dr Ralph Udeh
assistant