Title: Investigating Neutropenic Enterocolitis: A Systematic Review of Case Reports and
Clinical Insights
Version: 1 Date: 18 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Abeera Mehmood
Reviewer's report:
Congratulations on your effort. The manuscript is overal very well written, with clear objectives
and rigorous methodology. PRISMA guidelines are appropriately followed. Athough this
systematic review is based on case reports, still provides relevant information on characteristics
of a clinically important condition and summarizes clinical presentation, and management
startegies empolyed accross different parts of the world.
A few points which I think will help to improve the overall presentation and impact of the paper
are as follows:
1. Certain sentences need re-phrasing to make it more presentable e.g. clinically siginificant
is more appropriate than "clinically meaningful" , "chemotherapeutic agents" instead of
"chemotherapy treatments", imaging findings or simply results of investigations instaed of
"investigative findings" etc.
2. The choice of the GEE: it would help to provide a brief rationale for using this model,
particularly given the unique nature of the data.
3. Since many results did not reach statistical significance, a sentence discussing why certain
associations might lack statistical power (e.g., due to a small sample size for subgroups) could
strengthen the interpretation.
4.There is an inconsistency in reporting the data, i.e. percentages vs actual numbers  in various
sections.  try to keep the same format.
5. The "Results" section, while thorough, could benefit from slight restructuring to make it
more digestible. For example, combining or summarizing some statistical findings into fewer
paragraphs for the most important numerical findings (like percentages) could enhance clarity.
6.  A combined table with the patient demographics, clinical presentation and imaging findings,
treatment and complications to summarize the data in a visual format will improve the
readability.
7.  Including a comparative table for imaging techniques or for treatment modalities
(conservative vs. surgical) with outcomes could be especially valuable. (*if that data is available
ofcourse).
8.  in results section, "Among NE cases, the most common chemotherapy treatments were
daunorubicin (42 cases), doxorubicin (19 cases), prednisolone (40 cases), cytarabine (39 cases),
cyclophosphamide (37 cases), and vincristine (37 cases). Antibiotics and antifungals were
preventatively used in 25 and 16 patients, respectively. In terms of disease status at presentation,
remission was reported in 77 cases, relapse in 21, and refractory disease in 29."
Please explain if this means remission of NE sec. to use of prophylactic antibiotics, receiving
chemotherapy? if yes how does it differ to the treatment in the next section.
9. please clarify incidence in male vs female "More than half of the patients were female, with
ages ranging from 6 months to 83 years. We observed an almost 2.5-fold increase in incidence
in male patients."
I hope this this helps .
Title: Investigating Neutropenic Enterocolitis: A Systematic Review of Case Reports and
Clinical Insights
Version: 1 Date: 18 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Abeera Mehmood
Reviewer's report:
Congratulations on your effort. The manuscript is overal very well written, with clear objectives
and rigorous methodology. PRISMA guidelines are appropriately followed. Athough this
systematic review is based on case reports, still provides relevant information on characteristics
of a clinically important condition and summarizes clinical presentation, and management
startegies empolyed accross different parts of the world.
A few points which I think will help to improve the overall presentation and impact of the paper
are as follows:
1. Certain sentences need re-phrasing to make it more presentable e.g. clinically siginificant
is more appropriate than "clinically meaningful" , "chemotherapeutic agents" instead of
"chemotherapy treatments", imaging findings or simply results of investigations instaed of
"investigative findings" etc.
2. The choice of the GEE: it would help to provide a brief rationale for using this model,
particularly given the unique nature of the data.
3. Since many results did not reach statistical significance, a sentence discussing why certain
associations might lack statistical power (e.g., due to a small sample size for subgroups) could
strengthen the interpretation.
4.There is an inconsistency in reporting the data, i.e. percentages vs actual numbers  in various
sections.  try to keep the same format.
5. The "Results" section, while thorough, could benefit from slight restructuring to make it
more digestible. For example, combining or summarizing some statistical findings into fewer
paragraphs for the most important numerical findings (like percentages) could enhance clarity.
6.  A combined table with the patient demographics, clinical presentation and imaging findings,
treatment and complications to summarize the data in a visual format will improve the
readability.
7.  Including a comparative table for imaging techniques or for treatment modalities
(conservative vs. surgical) with outcomes could be especially valuable. (*if that data is available
ofcourse).
8.  in results section, "Among NE cases, the most common chemotherapy treatments were
daunorubicin (42 cases), doxorubicin (19 cases), prednisolone (40 cases), cytarabine (39 cases),
cyclophosphamide (37 cases), and vincristine (37 cases). Antibiotics and antifungals were
preventatively used in 25 and 16 patients, respectively. In terms of disease status at presentation,
remission was reported in 77 cases, relapse in 21, and refractory disease in 29."
Please explain if this means remission of NE sec. to use of prophylactic antibiotics, receiving
chemotherapy? if yes how does it differ to the treatment in the next section.
9. please clarify incidence in male vs female "More than half of the patients were female, with
ages ranging from 6 months to 83 years. We observed an almost 2.5-fold increase in incidence
in male patients."
I hope this this helps .
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Investigating Neutropenic Enterocolitis: A Systematic Review of Case Reports and
Clinical Insights
Version: 1 Date: 18 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Abeera Mehmood
Reviewer's report:
Congratulations on your effort. The manuscript is overal very well written, with clear objectives
and rigorous methodology. PRISMA guidelines are appropriately followed. Athough this
systematic review is based on case reports, still provides relevant information on characteristics
of a clinically important condition and summarizes clinical presentation, and management
startegies empolyed accross different parts of the world.
A few points which I think will help to improve the overall presentation and impact of the paper
are as follows:
1. Certain sentences need re-phrasing to make it more presentable e.g. clinically siginificant
is more appropriate than "clinically meaningful" , "chemotherapeutic agents" instead of
"chemotherapy treatments", imaging findings or simply results of investigations instaed of
"investigative findings" etc.
2. The choice of the GEE: it would help to provide a brief rationale for using this model,
particularly given the unique nature of the data.
3. Since many results did not reach statistical significance, a sentence discussing why certain
associations might lack statistical power (e.g., due to a small sample size for subgroups) could
strengthen the interpretation.
4.There is an inconsistency in reporting the data, i.e. percentages vs actual numbers  in various
sections.  try to keep the same format.
5. The "Results" section, while thorough, could benefit from slight restructuring to make it
more digestible. For example, combining or summarizing some statistical findings into fewer
paragraphs for the most important numerical findings (like percentages) could enhance clarity.
6.  A combined table with the patient demographics, clinical presentation and imaging findings,
treatment and complications to summarize the data in a visual format will improve the
readability.
7.  Including a comparative table for imaging techniques or for treatment modalities
(conservative vs. surgical) with outcomes could be especially valuable. (*if that data is available
ofcourse).
8.  in results section, "Among NE cases, the most common chemotherapy treatments were
daunorubicin (42 cases), doxorubicin (19 cases), prednisolone (40 cases), cytarabine (39 cases),
cyclophosphamide (37 cases), and vincristine (37 cases). Antibiotics and antifungals were
preventatively used in 25 and 16 patients, respectively. In terms of disease status at presentation,
remission was reported in 77 cases, relapse in 21, and refractory disease in 29."
Please explain if this means remission of NE sec. to use of prophylactic antibiotics, receiving
chemotherapy? if yes how does it differ to the treatment in the next section.
9. please clarify incidence in male vs female "More than half of the patients were female, with
ages ranging from 6 months to 83 years. We observed an almost 2.5-fold increase in incidence
in male patients."
I hope this this helps .
assistant