Title: Association between tea consumption and colorectal cancer: a systematic review and
meta-analysis of a population-based study
Version: 1 Date: 08 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
Employing a systemic review and meta-analysis, the authors have investigated the association
between tea consumption and colorectal cancer. Tea consumption showed no effect on colorectal
cancer. Although the topic is interesting there are several limitations:
1. Abstract: include data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, study evaluation and
synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings
2. It would be useful if the authors mentioned how they combined the results of observational
studies with the results of a RCT study.
3. Describe clearly all information sources (e.g., databases, contact with study authors, reference
of previous review articles, etch).
4. Include inclusion and exclusion criteria in more details.
5. Were the results extracted from the healthy participants or the patient’s population?
6. The table of characteristics of included studies should be add.
7. The table of meta-analysis based on several subgroups should be add.
8. The table of quality of studies should be listed.
9. There is not sufficient synthesis of the results.
10. The discussion section is overly long and does not explain the findings reported in this study
well.
11. The conclusion should be more conservative because of the limited evidence here.
12. The paper should be revised by a native speaker regarding its English writing and grammar.
Title: Association between tea consumption and colorectal cancer: a systematic review and
meta-analysis of a population-based study
Version: 1 Date: 08 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
Employing a systemic review and meta-analysis, the authors have investigated the association
between tea consumption and colorectal cancer. Tea consumption showed no effect on colorectal
cancer. Although the topic is interesting there are several limitations:
1. Abstract: include data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, study evaluation and
synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings
2. It would be useful if the authors mentioned how they combined the results of observational
studies with the results of a RCT study.
3. Describe clearly all information sources (e.g., databases, contact with study authors, reference
of previous review articles, etch).
4. Include inclusion and exclusion criteria in more details.
5. Were the results extracted from the healthy participants or the patient’s population?
6. The table of characteristics of included studies should be add.
7. The table of meta-analysis based on several subgroups should be add.
8. The table of quality of studies should be listed.
9. There is not sufficient synthesis of the results.
10. The discussion section is overly long and does not explain the findings reported in this study
well.
11. The conclusion should be more conservative because of the limited evidence here.
12. The paper should be revised by a native speaker regarding its English writing and grammar.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Association between tea consumption and colorectal cancer: a systematic review and
meta-analysis of a population-based study
Version: 1 Date: 08 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
Employing a systemic review and meta-analysis, the authors have investigated the association
between tea consumption and colorectal cancer. Tea consumption showed no effect on colorectal
cancer. Although the topic is interesting there are several limitations:
1. Abstract: include data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, study evaluation and
synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings
2. It would be useful if the authors mentioned how they combined the results of observational
studies with the results of a RCT study.
3. Describe clearly all information sources (e.g., databases, contact with study authors, reference
of previous review articles, etch).
4. Include inclusion and exclusion criteria in more details.
5. Were the results extracted from the healthy participants or the patient’s population?
6. The table of characteristics of included studies should be add.
7. The table of meta-analysis based on several subgroups should be add.
8. The table of quality of studies should be listed.
9. There is not sufficient synthesis of the results.
10. The discussion section is overly long and does not explain the findings reported in this study
well.
11. The conclusion should be more conservative because of the limited evidence here.
12. The paper should be revised by a native speaker regarding its English writing and grammar.
assistant