Title: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: No Evidence That Low-dose Non-Steroidal Anti-
Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) Reduce the Risk of Pancreatitis After Endoscopic Retrograde
Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)
Version: 2 Date: 02 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Amira A A Othman
Reviewer's report:
It is a systematic review or meta-analysis, focusing on synthesizing evidence from existing
research to draw meaningful conclusions for improving understanding or treatment strategies in
a clinical setting, potentially within gastroenterology or related medical fields. The paper appears
to involve investigating the relationship between specific interventions, potentially involving
endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory
drugs (NSAIDs), and clinical outcomes with advanced statistical techniques such as propensity
score matching to account for potential confounding factors and ensure a robust comparison.
The authors tried to contribute to this field of research with new findings; nevertheless, some
observations require sufficient justification.
1. Title: The title is descriptive but could be more concise. Consider revising the title to make it
more concise and impactful. Focus on capturing the study’s core objectives or outcomes while
maintaining clarity and scientific rigor.
2. Abstract: ensure the abstract succinctly summarizes the study's aims, methods, results, and
implications.
3. Scientific Content: Simplify the structure of the methodology section. While the inclusion
of detailed search terms (e.g., MeSH terms in PubMed) demonstrates thoroughness, it may
overwhelm readers. Summarize these details in the main text and move extensive lists to
supplementary materials for better readability.
4. Language and Flow: Refine the language throughout the manuscript to enhance clarity and
readability. Avoid redundant phrasing, particularly in the methods and results sections, and
ensure smooth transitions between sections for a logical progression of ideas.
5. Statistics: Provide a more detailed explanation of the statistical methods used, particularly
propensity score matching. Highlight why this method was chosen and how it addresses potential
biases. Ensure that results are presented with confidence intervals and p-values to strengthen
the reliability of the findings.
6. Practical Implications: Enhance the discussion section by emphasizing the clinical relevance
of your findings. Highlight how the results could influence practice or inform future research
directions.
7. Supplementary Materials: Consolidate extensive details, such as search term lists, into
appendices or supplementary materials. This will declutter the main text and improve its
readability.
8. Figures and Tables: Review the clarity and effectiveness of all figures and tables. Ensure they
are well-labeled and referenced in the text. Avoid overcrowding with excessive information,
and consider segmenting or simplifying complex visualizations.
Title: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: No Evidence That Low-dose Non-Steroidal Anti-
Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) Reduce the Risk of Pancreatitis After Endoscopic Retrograde
Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)
Version: 2 Date: 02 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Amira A A Othman
Reviewer's report:
It is a systematic review or meta-analysis, focusing on synthesizing evidence from existing
research to draw meaningful conclusions for improving understanding or treatment strategies in
a clinical setting, potentially within gastroenterology or related medical fields. The paper appears
to involve investigating the relationship between specific interventions, potentially involving
endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory
drugs (NSAIDs), and clinical outcomes with advanced statistical techniques such as propensity
score matching to account for potential confounding factors and ensure a robust comparison.
The authors tried to contribute to this field of research with new findings; nevertheless, some
observations require sufficient justification.
1. Title: The title is descriptive but could be more concise. Consider revising the title to make it
more concise and impactful. Focus on capturing the study’s core objectives or outcomes while
maintaining clarity and scientific rigor.
2. Abstract: ensure the abstract succinctly summarizes the study's aims, methods, results, and
implications.
3. Scientific Content: Simplify the structure of the methodology section. While the inclusion
of detailed search terms (e.g., MeSH terms in PubMed) demonstrates thoroughness, it may
overwhelm readers. Summarize these details in the main text and move extensive lists to
supplementary materials for better readability.
4. Language and Flow: Refine the language throughout the manuscript to enhance clarity and
readability. Avoid redundant phrasing, particularly in the methods and results sections, and
ensure smooth transitions between sections for a logical progression of ideas.
5. Statistics: Provide a more detailed explanation of the statistical methods used, particularly
propensity score matching. Highlight why this method was chosen and how it addresses potential
biases. Ensure that results are presented with confidence intervals and p-values to strengthen
the reliability of the findings.
6. Practical Implications: Enhance the discussion section by emphasizing the clinical relevance
of your findings. Highlight how the results could influence practice or inform future research
directions.
7. Supplementary Materials: Consolidate extensive details, such as search term lists, into
appendices or supplementary materials. This will declutter the main text and improve its
readability.
8. Figures and Tables: Review the clarity and effectiveness of all figures and tables. Ensure they
are well-labeled and referenced in the text. Avoid overcrowding with excessive information,
and consider segmenting or simplifying complex visualizations.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: No Evidence That Low-dose Non-Steroidal Anti-
Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) Reduce the Risk of Pancreatitis After Endoscopic Retrograde
Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)
Version: 2 Date: 02 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Amira A A Othman
Reviewer's report:
It is a systematic review or meta-analysis, focusing on synthesizing evidence from existing
research to draw meaningful conclusions for improving understanding or treatment strategies in
a clinical setting, potentially within gastroenterology or related medical fields. The paper appears
to involve investigating the relationship between specific interventions, potentially involving
endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory
drugs (NSAIDs), and clinical outcomes with advanced statistical techniques such as propensity
score matching to account for potential confounding factors and ensure a robust comparison.
The authors tried to contribute to this field of research with new findings; nevertheless, some
observations require sufficient justification.
1. Title: The title is descriptive but could be more concise. Consider revising the title to make it
more concise and impactful. Focus on capturing the study’s core objectives or outcomes while
maintaining clarity and scientific rigor.
2. Abstract: ensure the abstract succinctly summarizes the study's aims, methods, results, and
implications.
3. Scientific Content: Simplify the structure of the methodology section. While the inclusion
of detailed search terms (e.g., MeSH terms in PubMed) demonstrates thoroughness, it may
overwhelm readers. Summarize these details in the main text and move extensive lists to
supplementary materials for better readability.
4. Language and Flow: Refine the language throughout the manuscript to enhance clarity and
readability. Avoid redundant phrasing, particularly in the methods and results sections, and
ensure smooth transitions between sections for a logical progression of ideas.
5. Statistics: Provide a more detailed explanation of the statistical methods used, particularly
propensity score matching. Highlight why this method was chosen and how it addresses potential
biases. Ensure that results are presented with confidence intervals and p-values to strengthen
the reliability of the findings.
6. Practical Implications: Enhance the discussion section by emphasizing the clinical relevance
of your findings. Highlight how the results could influence practice or inform future research
directions.
7. Supplementary Materials: Consolidate extensive details, such as search term lists, into
appendices or supplementary materials. This will declutter the main text and improve its
readability.
8. Figures and Tables: Review the clarity and effectiveness of all figures and tables. Ensure they
are well-labeled and referenced in the text. Avoid overcrowding with excessive information,
and consider segmenting or simplifying complex visualizations.
assistant