Title: Birth Characteristics and Risk of Colorectal Cancer
Version: 3 Date: 14 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
This study explored the relationship between newborn birth characteristics and the incidence
of colorectal cancer (CRC) in adulthood. It found that factors like shorter birth length, lower
placental weight, and fetal growth restriction may increase CRC risk, while birth weight had
no significant effect.
Please see the following comments:
MEDLINE is essentially a subset of PubMed. MEDLINE refers to the bibliographic database of
life sciences and biomedical information that is accessible through PubMed. Therefore, listing
both PubMed and MEDLINE might be redundant. EBSCO is a database provider that hosts
multiple databases. Listing "EBSCO" without specifying which individual databases is less
informative.
I noticed that at least one potentially relevant study may have been omitted, which could
contribute to the meta-analysis. I recommend that the authors revisit the literature search to
ensure all pertinent studies are included. Additionally, incorporating EMBASE in the literature
review could address any gaps present in other databases and provide a more comprehensive
approach. Integrating EMBASE alongside other key databases would enhance the thoroughness
of the review.
Birth weight is positively correlated with both adult height and weight, and large adult body size
is a well-established risk factor for CRC. This raises the possibility that the association between
birth weight and CRC risk could be mediated by adult body size. Please consider discussing this
potential mediation effect in the discussion section.
The authors correctly identify the inconsistency in the classification of birth weight into "high"
and "low" categories across the included studies. Please discuss whether this misclassification is
non-differential or differential, and how it might affect the direction of the association observed.
Additionally, the phrase "the result is negative" is somewhat vague and could lead to confusion.
It would be helpful to clarify this statement for better understanding.
MINOR COMMENTS:
ABSTRACT:
It should be 95% CI; there are several "%" symbols missing before "CI."
The reference numbers are not in order.
Title: Birth Characteristics and Risk of Colorectal Cancer
Version: 3 Date: 14 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
This study explored the relationship between newborn birth characteristics and the incidence
of colorectal cancer (CRC) in adulthood. It found that factors like shorter birth length, lower
placental weight, and fetal growth restriction may increase CRC risk, while birth weight had
no significant effect.
Please see the following comments:
MEDLINE is essentially a subset of PubMed. MEDLINE refers to the bibliographic database of
life sciences and biomedical information that is accessible through PubMed. Therefore, listing
both PubMed and MEDLINE might be redundant. EBSCO is a database provider that hosts
multiple databases. Listing "EBSCO" without specifying which individual databases is less
informative.
I noticed that at least one potentially relevant study may have been omitted, which could
contribute to the meta-analysis. I recommend that the authors revisit the literature search to
ensure all pertinent studies are included. Additionally, incorporating EMBASE in the literature
review could address any gaps present in other databases and provide a more comprehensive
approach. Integrating EMBASE alongside other key databases would enhance the thoroughness
of the review.
Birth weight is positively correlated with both adult height and weight, and large adult body size
is a well-established risk factor for CRC. This raises the possibility that the association between
birth weight and CRC risk could be mediated by adult body size. Please consider discussing this
potential mediation effect in the discussion section.
The authors correctly identify the inconsistency in the classification of birth weight into "high"
and "low" categories across the included studies. Please discuss whether this misclassification is
non-differential or differential, and how it might affect the direction of the association observed.
Additionally, the phrase "the result is negative" is somewhat vague and could lead to confusion.
It would be helpful to clarify this statement for better understanding.
MINOR COMMENTS:
ABSTRACT:
It should be 95% CI; there are several "%" symbols missing before "CI."
The reference numbers are not in order.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Birth Characteristics and Risk of Colorectal Cancer
Version: 3 Date: 14 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
This study explored the relationship between newborn birth characteristics and the incidence
of colorectal cancer (CRC) in adulthood. It found that factors like shorter birth length, lower
placental weight, and fetal growth restriction may increase CRC risk, while birth weight had
no significant effect.
Please see the following comments:
MEDLINE is essentially a subset of PubMed. MEDLINE refers to the bibliographic database of
life sciences and biomedical information that is accessible through PubMed. Therefore, listing
both PubMed and MEDLINE might be redundant. EBSCO is a database provider that hosts
multiple databases. Listing "EBSCO" without specifying which individual databases is less
informative.
I noticed that at least one potentially relevant study may have been omitted, which could
contribute to the meta-analysis. I recommend that the authors revisit the literature search to
ensure all pertinent studies are included. Additionally, incorporating EMBASE in the literature
review could address any gaps present in other databases and provide a more comprehensive
approach. Integrating EMBASE alongside other key databases would enhance the thoroughness
of the review.
Birth weight is positively correlated with both adult height and weight, and large adult body size
is a well-established risk factor for CRC. This raises the possibility that the association between
birth weight and CRC risk could be mediated by adult body size. Please consider discussing this
potential mediation effect in the discussion section.
The authors correctly identify the inconsistency in the classification of birth weight into "high"
and "low" categories across the included studies. Please discuss whether this misclassification is
non-differential or differential, and how it might affect the direction of the association observed.
Additionally, the phrase "the result is negative" is somewhat vague and could lead to confusion.
It would be helpful to clarify this statement for better understanding.
MINOR COMMENTS:
ABSTRACT:
It should be 95% CI; there are several "%" symbols missing before "CI."
The reference numbers are not in order.
assistant