Title: Can Proximal Gastrectomy with Double-Tract Reconstruction Replace Total
Gastrectomy? a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched
studies
Version: 0 Date: 13 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for the invitation to review this paper. Below are my comments:
For 5 year overall survival, I think it is more appropriate to do hazard ratio meta-analysis instead
of odds ratio meta-analysis, same thing might apply for recurrence, please consult with your
statistician.
The article needs to be proofread heavily (language, grammar, and sentences completion as
sometime I can tell that a word was dropped and the sentence isn’t complete).
In early phase complications, the word “pulmonary” stands alone, pulmonary what? Infection?
It seems decision to use random versus fixed model was based on heterogeneity, please add this
in the methods section, statistical analysis subsection.
In the prisma diagram, one of the reasons for exclusion written is low quality literature, did this
include some psm and rcts studies? If yes please specify how did you determine they are low
quality, did you assess them prior to excluding them using the Newcastle or the Cochrane tool?
Why lower number of harvested lymph nodes was considered advantage?
I think it is better to add specific complications analysis rather than just relying only on total
complications analysis, total analysis is good, but it is good too to analyze the most common
surgical complications separately, only the most common.
In figure 15, you forgot to add the graph labels, also make sure to switch and put lpg-dtr into
the right and ltg on the left.
Make sure to do the same switch to figure 17.
Given the limitations, the authors need to restrain for stating strong conclusions in the abstract,
discussion, and conclusions.
Title: Can Proximal Gastrectomy with Double-Tract Reconstruction Replace Total
Gastrectomy? a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched
studies
Version: 0 Date: 13 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for the invitation to review this paper. Below are my comments:
For 5 year overall survival, I think it is more appropriate to do hazard ratio meta-analysis instead
of odds ratio meta-analysis, same thing might apply for recurrence, please consult with your
statistician.
The article needs to be proofread heavily (language, grammar, and sentences completion as
sometime I can tell that a word was dropped and the sentence isn’t complete).
In early phase complications, the word “pulmonary” stands alone, pulmonary what? Infection?
It seems decision to use random versus fixed model was based on heterogeneity, please add this
in the methods section, statistical analysis subsection.
In the prisma diagram, one of the reasons for exclusion written is low quality literature, did this
include some psm and rcts studies? If yes please specify how did you determine they are low
quality, did you assess them prior to excluding them using the Newcastle or the Cochrane tool?
Why lower number of harvested lymph nodes was considered advantage?
I think it is better to add specific complications analysis rather than just relying only on total
complications analysis, total analysis is good, but it is good too to analyze the most common
surgical complications separately, only the most common.
In figure 15, you forgot to add the graph labels, also make sure to switch and put lpg-dtr into
the right and ltg on the left.
Make sure to do the same switch to figure 17.
Given the limitations, the authors need to restrain for stating strong conclusions in the abstract,
discussion, and conclusions.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Can Proximal Gastrectomy with Double-Tract Reconstruction Replace Total
Gastrectomy? a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched
studies
Version: 0 Date: 13 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for the invitation to review this paper. Below are my comments:
For 5 year overall survival, I think it is more appropriate to do hazard ratio meta-analysis instead
of odds ratio meta-analysis, same thing might apply for recurrence, please consult with your
statistician.
The article needs to be proofread heavily (language, grammar, and sentences completion as
sometime I can tell that a word was dropped and the sentence isn’t complete).
In early phase complications, the word “pulmonary” stands alone, pulmonary what? Infection?
It seems decision to use random versus fixed model was based on heterogeneity, please add this
in the methods section, statistical analysis subsection.
In the prisma diagram, one of the reasons for exclusion written is low quality literature, did this
include some psm and rcts studies? If yes please specify how did you determine they are low
quality, did you assess them prior to excluding them using the Newcastle or the Cochrane tool?
Why lower number of harvested lymph nodes was considered advantage?
I think it is better to add specific complications analysis rather than just relying only on total
complications analysis, total analysis is good, but it is good too to analyze the most common
surgical complications separately, only the most common.
In figure 15, you forgot to add the graph labels, also make sure to switch and put lpg-dtr into
the right and ltg on the left.
Make sure to do the same switch to figure 17.
Given the limitations, the authors need to restrain for stating strong conclusions in the abstract,
discussion, and conclusions.
assistant