Title: Global prevalence of Fusobacterium nucleatum and Bacteroides fragilis in patients with
colorectal cancer: an overview of case reports/case series and meta-analysis of prevalence
studies
Version: 2 Date: 07 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for the opportunity to re-review this manuscript  now titled “Global
prevalence of Fusobacterium nucleatum and Bacteroides fragilis in patients with
colorectal cancer: an overview of case reports/case series and meta-analysis of
prevalence studies
”. Thanks to the authors who have done an overall great job revising the original manuscript. I
only have a few follow-up comments to my previous response:
1. No further comments to their response in Abstract and Introduction sections.
2. Regarding Methods section (no 4), the authors should leave their response statement
concerning grading of heterogeneity in the main text of section 2.5.
3. My concern with result section is with reporting and referencing of the figures in the main
text of section 3.2.
a. The title for Figure 2 should read “Summary of the meta-analysis on the prevalence studies
……”, not just ‘prevalence….
b. The title for Figure 3 should also tell us if it’s a Random effect model or fixed effect model
c. In light of (a) above, this statement should be rephrased as follows … ‘The forest plots are
shown in Figure 3 and all the required data for the meta-analysis are summarized in Figure 2’
…. Rather than saying ‘All of the required data for a meta-analysis has been summarized in
Figure 3’.
Also, … Furthermore, Figure 4 shows ‘some (or no) publication bias’ observed among the
assessed data. Please leave a statement of your assessment of the funnel plot in figure 4 based
on “your” view of apparent (or no) asymmetry - in conjunction with your interpretation of the
Egger’s test and/or Begg’s test
d. The authors should also leave the data from their Egger’s test (most often p-value is enough)
and/or Begg’s test on the Figure 4 footnote.
Best wishes,
Dr Ralph Udeh
Title: Global prevalence of Fusobacterium nucleatum and Bacteroides fragilis in patients with
colorectal cancer: an overview of case reports/case series and meta-analysis of prevalence
studies
Version: 2 Date: 07 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for the opportunity to re-review this manuscript  now titled “Global
prevalence of Fusobacterium nucleatum and Bacteroides fragilis in patients with
colorectal cancer: an overview of case reports/case series and meta-analysis of
prevalence studies
”. Thanks to the authors who have done an overall great job revising the original manuscript. I
only have a few follow-up comments to my previous response:
1. No further comments to their response in Abstract and Introduction sections.
2. Regarding Methods section (no 4), the authors should leave their response statement
concerning grading of heterogeneity in the main text of section 2.5.
3. My concern with result section is with reporting and referencing of the figures in the main
text of section 3.2.
a. The title for Figure 2 should read “Summary of the meta-analysis on the prevalence studies
……”, not just ‘prevalence….
b. The title for Figure 3 should also tell us if it’s a Random effect model or fixed effect model
c. In light of (a) above, this statement should be rephrased as follows … ‘The forest plots are
shown in Figure 3 and all the required data for the meta-analysis are summarized in Figure 2’
…. Rather than saying ‘All of the required data for a meta-analysis has been summarized in
Figure 3’.
Also, … Furthermore, Figure 4 shows ‘some (or no) publication bias’ observed among the
assessed data. Please leave a statement of your assessment of the funnel plot in figure 4 based
on “your” view of apparent (or no) asymmetry - in conjunction with your interpretation of the
Egger’s test and/or Begg’s test
d. The authors should also leave the data from their Egger’s test (most often p-value is enough)
and/or Begg’s test on the Figure 4 footnote.
Best wishes,
Dr Ralph Udeh
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Global prevalence of Fusobacterium nucleatum and Bacteroides fragilis in patients with
colorectal cancer: an overview of case reports/case series and meta-analysis of prevalence
studies
Version: 2 Date: 07 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for the opportunity to re-review this manuscript  now titled “Global
prevalence of Fusobacterium nucleatum and Bacteroides fragilis in patients with
colorectal cancer: an overview of case reports/case series and meta-analysis of
prevalence studies
”. Thanks to the authors who have done an overall great job revising the original manuscript. I
only have a few follow-up comments to my previous response:
1. No further comments to their response in Abstract and Introduction sections.
2. Regarding Methods section (no 4), the authors should leave their response statement
concerning grading of heterogeneity in the main text of section 2.5.
3. My concern with result section is with reporting and referencing of the figures in the main
text of section 3.2.
a. The title for Figure 2 should read “Summary of the meta-analysis on the prevalence studies
……”, not just ‘prevalence….
b. The title for Figure 3 should also tell us if it’s a Random effect model or fixed effect model
c. In light of (a) above, this statement should be rephrased as follows … ‘The forest plots are
shown in Figure 3 and all the required data for the meta-analysis are summarized in Figure 2’
…. Rather than saying ‘All of the required data for a meta-analysis has been summarized in
Figure 3’.
Also, … Furthermore, Figure 4 shows ‘some (or no) publication bias’ observed among the
assessed data. Please leave a statement of your assessment of the funnel plot in figure 4 based
on “your” view of apparent (or no) asymmetry - in conjunction with your interpretation of the
Egger’s test and/or Begg’s test
d. The authors should also leave the data from their Egger’s test (most often p-value is enough)
and/or Begg’s test on the Figure 4 footnote.
Best wishes,
Dr Ralph Udeh
assistant