Title: Risk factors for metachronous colorectal cancer and advanced neoplasia following
primary colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 14 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
STATISTICAL REVIEWER ASSESSMENT:
Is the study design appropriate for the research question (considering whether the analyzed
population accurately reflects the design and whether you see any problems with control/
comparison groups, e.g., likely confounders)?
Yes - overall design, population, and control groups are appropriate
Are methodologies adequate and well implemented (considering whether assumptions are
addressed and whether analyses are robust)?
Yes - methodologies are adequate and well implemented, assumptions are addressed, analysis
is robust
Are the analyses adequately communicated (considering whether reporting details are adequate
and whether figures and tables are well labeled and described)?
Yes - important reporting details are present, analyses are adequately communicated, figures
and tables are well labeled and described
Does the interpretation accurately reflect the analyses without overstatement (considering
whether limitations/bias are acknowledged and whether accurate descriptors, e.g., 'significant',
are used)?
Yes - interpretation accurately reflects analyses, limitations/bias are acknowledged, accurate
descriptors are used
Could an appropriately REVISED version of this work represent a statistically sound
contribution?
Yes - current version has sound statistics
STATISTICAL REVIEWER COMMENTS:
The revisions made have adequately addressed my previous comments. I am content with the
current version.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
I have no more comments to add.
Title: Risk factors for metachronous colorectal cancer and advanced neoplasia following
primary colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 14 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
STATISTICAL REVIEWER ASSESSMENT:
Is the study design appropriate for the research question (considering whether the analyzed
population accurately reflects the design and whether you see any problems with control/
comparison groups, e.g., likely confounders)?
Yes - overall design, population, and control groups are appropriate
Are methodologies adequate and well implemented (considering whether assumptions are
addressed and whether analyses are robust)?
Yes - methodologies are adequate and well implemented, assumptions are addressed, analysis
is robust
Are the analyses adequately communicated (considering whether reporting details are adequate
and whether figures and tables are well labeled and described)?
Yes - important reporting details are present, analyses are adequately communicated, figures
and tables are well labeled and described
Does the interpretation accurately reflect the analyses without overstatement (considering
whether limitations/bias are acknowledged and whether accurate descriptors, e.g., 'significant',
are used)?
Yes - interpretation accurately reflects analyses, limitations/bias are acknowledged, accurate
descriptors are used
Could an appropriately REVISED version of this work represent a statistically sound
contribution?
Yes - current version has sound statistics
STATISTICAL REVIEWER COMMENTS:
The revisions made have adequately addressed my previous comments. I am content with the
current version.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
I have no more comments to add.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Risk factors for metachronous colorectal cancer and advanced neoplasia following
primary colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 14 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
STATISTICAL REVIEWER ASSESSMENT:
Is the study design appropriate for the research question (considering whether the analyzed
population accurately reflects the design and whether you see any problems with control/
comparison groups, e.g., likely confounders)?
Yes - overall design, population, and control groups are appropriate
Are methodologies adequate and well implemented (considering whether assumptions are
addressed and whether analyses are robust)?
Yes - methodologies are adequate and well implemented, assumptions are addressed, analysis
is robust
Are the analyses adequately communicated (considering whether reporting details are adequate
and whether figures and tables are well labeled and described)?
Yes - important reporting details are present, analyses are adequately communicated, figures
and tables are well labeled and described
Does the interpretation accurately reflect the analyses without overstatement (considering
whether limitations/bias are acknowledged and whether accurate descriptors, e.g., 'significant',
are used)?
Yes - interpretation accurately reflects analyses, limitations/bias are acknowledged, accurate
descriptors are used
Could an appropriately REVISED version of this work represent a statistically sound
contribution?
Yes - current version has sound statistics
STATISTICAL REVIEWER COMMENTS:
The revisions made have adequately addressed my previous comments. I am content with the
current version.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
I have no more comments to add.
assistant