Title: Aberrant SNHG expression predicts poor prognosis in esophageal cancer using meta-
analysis and bioinformatics analysis
Version: 0 Date: 27 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors ,please address the following points below
-This manuscript presents a significant and well-executed investigation into the prognostic role
of SNHG expression in esophageal cancer, employing a combination of meta-analysis and
bioinformatics tools.
-The question remains whether SNHG is specific to esophageal cancer or serves as a general
biomarker for various cancers. Furthermore, would its application in clinical settings necessitate
additional validation across diverse patient populations?
-The findings related to overall survival (HR: 1.392, 95% CI = 0.876–1.908) warrant further
clarification. Although the hazard ratio (HR) suggests a potential association with poorer
survival outcomes, the wide confidence interval (0.876–1.908) encompasses 1, indicating a lack
of statistically significant association. This point merits clearer articulation to prevent possible
misinterpretation by the readers.
-Similarly, the reported HRs for subgroup analyses (e.g., SNHG2, SNHG5, SNHG12) could
benefit from additional context, as the wide confidence intervals may create confusion regarding
the statistical significance of the findings. A more thorough explanation is necessary to
determine whether these results reflect true associations or variability in the data.
-Enhancing the flow of the results section would contribute to a clearer narrative that is easier
to follow.
-The characterization of "SNHG2, SNHG5, and SNHG12" as favorable markers could also be
articulated more precisely. It would be beneficial to specify whether this assessment is grounded
in expression levels or other molecular characteristics.
-The statement that "bioinformatics has been explored" is somewhat ambiguous. While the use
of bioinformatics is commendable, offering more detailed information regarding the methods
or databases utilized—such as gene expression databases and survival analysis tools—would
enhance the transparency and rigor of the study. Additionally, indicating how the bioinformatics
findings correspond with the statistical outcomes from the meta-analysis would provide further
clarity.
-Lastly, it is crucial to specify whether the studies included in the analysis were conducted in
the same geographical region, examined similar types of esophageal cancer (e.g., squamous cell
carcinoma or adenocarcinoma), or adhered to comparable study designs. This information is
essential for assessing the generalizability of the findings.
Title: Aberrant SNHG expression predicts poor prognosis in esophageal cancer using meta-
analysis and bioinformatics analysis
Version: 0 Date: 27 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors ,please address the following points below
-This manuscript presents a significant and well-executed investigation into the prognostic role
of SNHG expression in esophageal cancer, employing a combination of meta-analysis and
bioinformatics tools.
-The question remains whether SNHG is specific to esophageal cancer or serves as a general
biomarker for various cancers. Furthermore, would its application in clinical settings necessitate
additional validation across diverse patient populations?
-The findings related to overall survival (HR: 1.392, 95% CI = 0.876–1.908) warrant further
clarification. Although the hazard ratio (HR) suggests a potential association with poorer
survival outcomes, the wide confidence interval (0.876–1.908) encompasses 1, indicating a lack
of statistically significant association. This point merits clearer articulation to prevent possible
misinterpretation by the readers.
-Similarly, the reported HRs for subgroup analyses (e.g., SNHG2, SNHG5, SNHG12) could
benefit from additional context, as the wide confidence intervals may create confusion regarding
the statistical significance of the findings. A more thorough explanation is necessary to
determine whether these results reflect true associations or variability in the data.
-Enhancing the flow of the results section would contribute to a clearer narrative that is easier
to follow.
-The characterization of "SNHG2, SNHG5, and SNHG12" as favorable markers could also be
articulated more precisely. It would be beneficial to specify whether this assessment is grounded
in expression levels or other molecular characteristics.
-The statement that "bioinformatics has been explored" is somewhat ambiguous. While the use
of bioinformatics is commendable, offering more detailed information regarding the methods
or databases utilized—such as gene expression databases and survival analysis tools—would
enhance the transparency and rigor of the study. Additionally, indicating how the bioinformatics
findings correspond with the statistical outcomes from the meta-analysis would provide further
clarity.
-Lastly, it is crucial to specify whether the studies included in the analysis were conducted in
the same geographical region, examined similar types of esophageal cancer (e.g., squamous cell
carcinoma or adenocarcinoma), or adhered to comparable study designs. This information is
essential for assessing the generalizability of the findings.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Aberrant SNHG expression predicts poor prognosis in esophageal cancer using meta-
analysis and bioinformatics analysis
Version: 0 Date: 27 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors ,please address the following points below
-This manuscript presents a significant and well-executed investigation into the prognostic role
of SNHG expression in esophageal cancer, employing a combination of meta-analysis and
bioinformatics tools.
-The question remains whether SNHG is specific to esophageal cancer or serves as a general
biomarker for various cancers. Furthermore, would its application in clinical settings necessitate
additional validation across diverse patient populations?
-The findings related to overall survival (HR: 1.392, 95% CI = 0.876–1.908) warrant further
clarification. Although the hazard ratio (HR) suggests a potential association with poorer
survival outcomes, the wide confidence interval (0.876–1.908) encompasses 1, indicating a lack
of statistically significant association. This point merits clearer articulation to prevent possible
misinterpretation by the readers.
-Similarly, the reported HRs for subgroup analyses (e.g., SNHG2, SNHG5, SNHG12) could
benefit from additional context, as the wide confidence intervals may create confusion regarding
the statistical significance of the findings. A more thorough explanation is necessary to
determine whether these results reflect true associations or variability in the data.
-Enhancing the flow of the results section would contribute to a clearer narrative that is easier
to follow.
-The characterization of "SNHG2, SNHG5, and SNHG12" as favorable markers could also be
articulated more precisely. It would be beneficial to specify whether this assessment is grounded
in expression levels or other molecular characteristics.
-The statement that "bioinformatics has been explored" is somewhat ambiguous. While the use
of bioinformatics is commendable, offering more detailed information regarding the methods
or databases utilized—such as gene expression databases and survival analysis tools—would
enhance the transparency and rigor of the study. Additionally, indicating how the bioinformatics
findings correspond with the statistical outcomes from the meta-analysis would provide further
clarity.
-Lastly, it is crucial to specify whether the studies included in the analysis were conducted in
the same geographical region, examined similar types of esophageal cancer (e.g., squamous cell
carcinoma or adenocarcinoma), or adhered to comparable study designs. This information is
essential for assessing the generalizability of the findings.
assistant