Title: The impact of pancreatic duct stent placement on the clinically relevant postoperative
pancreatic fistula rate for high-risk anastomoses: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 07 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Sushila Kumar Pattanaik
Reviewer's report:
Authors have done a good job of systematically reviewing and synthesising the available data
with appropriate statistical methods on a relevant issue.
Please make few  corrections of inadvertent errors.
1. In the Abstract section, full form of CR-POPF may be mentioned at its first appearance in
text. At the end of the sentence, "...for at least one high-risk factor (p = 0.234)", you can add "out
of two factors selected" for more clarity at this stage. You may omit if it crosses the word limit.
2.  Heterogeneity classification based on Higgin's I2 is to be discouraged, in my view. Because
it is not an absolute variance, but a proportion as you have mentioned correctly.
3. In the Supplementary Appendix 1: Introduction is to be located in Section 2 instead of Section
1.
4. Can we revise the serial no of references from 9 to 13 as follows: 10 to 9, 13 to 10, 9 to 11,
11 to 12, and 12 to 13, and cite accordingly.
5. In Tables 1 and 2: Spellings of representation, duodenum, and spacing between some words
may be corrected.
Title: The impact of pancreatic duct stent placement on the clinically relevant postoperative
pancreatic fistula rate for high-risk anastomoses: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 07 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Sushila Kumar Pattanaik
Reviewer's report:
Authors have done a good job of systematically reviewing and synthesising the available data
with appropriate statistical methods on a relevant issue.
Please make few  corrections of inadvertent errors.
1. In the Abstract section, full form of CR-POPF may be mentioned at its first appearance in
text. At the end of the sentence, "...for at least one high-risk factor (p = 0.234)", you can add "out
of two factors selected" for more clarity at this stage. You may omit if it crosses the word limit.
2.  Heterogeneity classification based on Higgin's I2 is to be discouraged, in my view. Because
it is not an absolute variance, but a proportion as you have mentioned correctly.
3. In the Supplementary Appendix 1: Introduction is to be located in Section 2 instead of Section
1.
4. Can we revise the serial no of references from 9 to 13 as follows: 10 to 9, 13 to 10, 9 to 11,
11 to 12, and 12 to 13, and cite accordingly.
5. In Tables 1 and 2: Spellings of representation, duodenum, and spacing between some words
may be corrected.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The impact of pancreatic duct stent placement on the clinically relevant postoperative
pancreatic fistula rate for high-risk anastomoses: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 07 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Sushila Kumar Pattanaik
Reviewer's report:
Authors have done a good job of systematically reviewing and synthesising the available data
with appropriate statistical methods on a relevant issue.
Please make few  corrections of inadvertent errors.
1. In the Abstract section, full form of CR-POPF may be mentioned at its first appearance in
text. At the end of the sentence, "...for at least one high-risk factor (p = 0.234)", you can add "out
of two factors selected" for more clarity at this stage. You may omit if it crosses the word limit.
2.  Heterogeneity classification based on Higgin's I2 is to be discouraged, in my view. Because
it is not an absolute variance, but a proportion as you have mentioned correctly.
3. In the Supplementary Appendix 1: Introduction is to be located in Section 2 instead of Section
1.
4. Can we revise the serial no of references from 9 to 13 as follows: 10 to 9, 13 to 10, 9 to 11,
11 to 12, and 12 to 13, and cite accordingly.
5. In Tables 1 and 2: Spellings of representation, duodenum, and spacing between some words
may be corrected.
assistant