Title: Second primary colorectal cancer in adults: a SEER analysis of incidence and outcomes
Version: 1 Date: 08 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
The paper named “Second primary colorectal cancer in adults: a SEER analysis of incidence and
outcomes” conducted by Lun et al. has been evaluated. I think this study has certain innovation
and clinical significance. However, some obvious limitations impair the overall quality. Before
it is suitable for publication, I suggest the author make substantive modifications.
1. I noticed that some of the figures have a low resolution which makes them hard to read. I
would suggest that the authors increase the resolution of these figures, which would make them
easier to read and understand. This would also make it easier for readers to fully understand the
results and make use of it. I believe that increasing the resolution of these figures would greatly
improve the manuscript.
2. This study was conducted based on open-accessed data. Some previous studies have
used similar bioinformatics or statistical methods. Although it will lose some innovation,
I think it will benefit the reader if the authors could include the following references,
which would provide readers with a more complete understanding of the whole study: doi:
10.4103/aja2021102; doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-07070-1; doi: 10.3389/fgene.2021.627508; doi:
10.1177/10732748221129451...
3. Detailed description of all method section is required.
4. State the * and statistic value in the method section or otherwise mention in every figure
legend. e.g., *p>0.05.
5. Check the reference style and abbreviation of journals.
6. Some typos are there; rectify those (Minor).
7. Please highlight the clinical importance of this study.
Title: Second primary colorectal cancer in adults: a SEER analysis of incidence and outcomes
Version: 1 Date: 08 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
The paper named “Second primary colorectal cancer in adults: a SEER analysis of incidence and
outcomes” conducted by Lun et al. has been evaluated. I think this study has certain innovation
and clinical significance. However, some obvious limitations impair the overall quality. Before
it is suitable for publication, I suggest the author make substantive modifications.
1. I noticed that some of the figures have a low resolution which makes them hard to read. I
would suggest that the authors increase the resolution of these figures, which would make them
easier to read and understand. This would also make it easier for readers to fully understand the
results and make use of it. I believe that increasing the resolution of these figures would greatly
improve the manuscript.
2. This study was conducted based on open-accessed data. Some previous studies have
used similar bioinformatics or statistical methods. Although it will lose some innovation,
I think it will benefit the reader if the authors could include the following references,
which would provide readers with a more complete understanding of the whole study: doi:
10.4103/aja2021102; doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-07070-1; doi: 10.3389/fgene.2021.627508; doi:
10.1177/10732748221129451...
3. Detailed description of all method section is required.
4. State the * and statistic value in the method section or otherwise mention in every figure
legend. e.g., *p>0.05.
5. Check the reference style and abbreviation of journals.
6. Some typos are there; rectify those (Minor).
7. Please highlight the clinical importance of this study.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Second primary colorectal cancer in adults: a SEER analysis of incidence and outcomes
Version: 1 Date: 08 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
The paper named “Second primary colorectal cancer in adults: a SEER analysis of incidence and
outcomes” conducted by Lun et al. has been evaluated. I think this study has certain innovation
and clinical significance. However, some obvious limitations impair the overall quality. Before
it is suitable for publication, I suggest the author make substantive modifications.
1. I noticed that some of the figures have a low resolution which makes them hard to read. I
would suggest that the authors increase the resolution of these figures, which would make them
easier to read and understand. This would also make it easier for readers to fully understand the
results and make use of it. I believe that increasing the resolution of these figures would greatly
improve the manuscript.
2. This study was conducted based on open-accessed data. Some previous studies have
used similar bioinformatics or statistical methods. Although it will lose some innovation,
I think it will benefit the reader if the authors could include the following references,
which would provide readers with a more complete understanding of the whole study: doi:
10.4103/aja2021102; doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-07070-1; doi: 10.3389/fgene.2021.627508; doi:
10.1177/10732748221129451...
3. Detailed description of all method section is required.
4. State the * and statistic value in the method section or otherwise mention in every figure
legend. e.g., *p>0.05.
5. Check the reference style and abbreviation of journals.
6. Some typos are there; rectify those (Minor).
7. Please highlight the clinical importance of this study.
assistant