Title: Prevalence of Autoimmune Pancreatitis in Pancreatic Resection for Suspected
Malignancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Version: 4 Date: 02 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
No - manuscript has some fundamental flaw(s)
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I read the article by Karamya et al. with interest. The authors
submitted the revised article addressing the concerns of reviewers. I have the following
comments:
1. “Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a new and rare disease that was first reported by Sarles
et al. in 1961”. For a disease that has been known since 1961 can’t be considered new, please
modify accordingly.
2. The authors mentioned registering their study in Prospero after they already started their
systematic review including first submission to the journal. This is against the methodology of
the systematic reviews.
3. Provide company name, and location for the software Mendeley reference manager.
4. The authors have inconsistently reported the test of heterogeneity i.e. I2. Please give I2 with
each proportion / confidence interval in the results section.
5. The authors should also discuss the following study (https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34297267/) as AIP has shown to correlate with GI malignancies.
6. The authors should also discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their study particularly the
observational nature of included studies along with inclusion of low quality studies as well
(NCOS <4).
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Please see the comments above."
Title: Prevalence of Autoimmune Pancreatitis in Pancreatic Resection for Suspected
Malignancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Version: 4 Date: 02 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
No - manuscript has some fundamental flaw(s)
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I read the article by Karamya et al. with interest. The authors
submitted the revised article addressing the concerns of reviewers. I have the following
comments:
1. “Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a new and rare disease that was first reported by Sarles
et al. in 1961”. For a disease that has been known since 1961 can’t be considered new, please
modify accordingly.
2. The authors mentioned registering their study in Prospero after they already started their
systematic review including first submission to the journal. This is against the methodology of
the systematic reviews.
3. Provide company name, and location for the software Mendeley reference manager.
4. The authors have inconsistently reported the test of heterogeneity i.e. I2. Please give I2 with
each proportion / confidence interval in the results section.
5. The authors should also discuss the following study (https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34297267/) as AIP has shown to correlate with GI malignancies.
6. The authors should also discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their study particularly the
observational nature of included studies along with inclusion of low quality studies as well
(NCOS <4).
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Please see the comments above."
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Prevalence of Autoimmune Pancreatitis in Pancreatic Resection for Suspected
Malignancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Version: 4 Date: 02 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
No - manuscript has some fundamental flaw(s)
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I read the article by Karamya et al. with interest. The authors
submitted the revised article addressing the concerns of reviewers. I have the following
comments:
1. “Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a new and rare disease that was first reported by Sarles
et al. in 1961”. For a disease that has been known since 1961 can’t be considered new, please
modify accordingly.
2. The authors mentioned registering their study in Prospero after they already started their
systematic review including first submission to the journal. This is against the methodology of
the systematic reviews.
3. Provide company name, and location for the software Mendeley reference manager.
4. The authors have inconsistently reported the test of heterogeneity i.e. I2. Please give I2 with
each proportion / confidence interval in the results section.
5. The authors should also discuss the following study (https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34297267/) as AIP has shown to correlate with GI malignancies.
6. The authors should also discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their study particularly the
observational nature of included studies along with inclusion of low quality studies as well
(NCOS <4).
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Please see the comments above."
assistant