Reviewer's report
Title:Association of RUNX 3 Promoter Methylation with Gastric Cancer: a
Pooled Study
Version: 3Date:5 May 2011
Reviewer: Young-Sik Kim
Reviewer's report:
The authors conducted a meta-analysis of the association between RUNX3
promoter methylation and gastric cancer. They concluded that RUNX3 promoter
methylation is strongly associated with gastric cancer with a pooled OR of 5.63.
The manuscript gives valuable information but contains some errors.
1)In Abstract, total number of patients was described as 2374, but the number in
Fig. 2 was 1740 (928+812).
2)In Abstract, the OR of the undifferentiated gastric cancer against the
well-differentiated was described as 0.59. In Results (p11, lines 1-3) The
undifferentiated gastric cancer also had higher methylation OR...
These sentences are confusing and contradictory. The authors should present
the OR of undifferentiated gastric cancer against the well-differentiated cancer.
3)In Introduction(p4, line24), "gastric, cancers..." comma should be removed.
4)In Method (p6, lines 12-13), Did the authors really searched using "the Social
Science Citation Index"?
5)The inclusion criteria should be described in detail in the method section.
6)In Results, asymmetry tests of the funnel plot should be described.
7)In Figures 2-4, the X-axis labels (gastric cancer and normal tissue) are
reversed.
8)In Figure 6 (Funnel plot), what's the meaning of the orange line?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Association of RUNX 3 Promoter Methylation with Gastric Cancer: a
Pooled Study
Version: 3Date:5 May 2011
Reviewer: Young-Sik Kim
Reviewer's report:
The authors conducted a meta-analysis of the association between RUNX3
promoter methylation and gastric cancer. They concluded that RUNX3 promoter
methylation is strongly associated with gastric cancer with a pooled OR of 5.63.
The manuscript gives valuable information but contains some errors.
1)In Abstract, total number of patients was described as 2374, but the number in
Fig. 2 was 1740 (928+812).
2)In Abstract, the OR of the undifferentiated gastric cancer against the
well-differentiated was described as 0.59. In Results (p11, lines 1-3) The
undifferentiated gastric cancer also had higher methylation OR...
These sentences are confusing and contradictory. The authors should present
the OR of undifferentiated gastric cancer against the well-differentiated cancer.
3)In Introduction(p4, line24), "gastric, cancers..." comma should be removed.
4)In Method (p6, lines 12-13), Did the authors really searched using "the Social
Science Citation Index"?
5)The inclusion criteria should be described in detail in the method section.
6)In Results, asymmetry tests of the funnel plot should be described.
7)In Figures 2-4, the X-axis labels (gastric cancer and normal tissue) are
reversed.
8)In Figure 6 (Funnel plot), what's the meaning of the orange line?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Association of RUNX 3 Promoter Methylation with Gastric Cancer: a
Pooled Study
Version: 3Date:5 May 2011
Reviewer: Young-Sik Kim
Reviewer's report:
The authors conducted a meta-analysis of the association between RUNX3
promoter methylation and gastric cancer. They concluded that RUNX3 promoter
methylation is strongly associated with gastric cancer with a pooled OR of 5.63.
The manuscript gives valuable information but contains some errors.
1)In Abstract, total number of patients was described as 2374, but the number in
Fig. 2 was 1740 (928+812).
2)In Abstract, the OR of the undifferentiated gastric cancer against the
well-differentiated was described as 0.59. In Results (p11, lines 1-3) The
undifferentiated gastric cancer also had higher methylation OR...
These sentences are confusing and contradictory. The authors should present
the OR of undifferentiated gastric cancer against the well-differentiated cancer.
3)In Introduction(p4, line24), "gastric, cancers..." comma should be removed.
4)In Method (p6, lines 12-13), Did the authors really searched using "the Social
Science Citation Index"?
5)The inclusion criteria should be described in detail in the method section.
6)In Results, asymmetry tests of the funnel plot should be described.
7)In Figures 2-4, the X-axis labels (gastric cancer and normal tissue) are
reversed.
8)In Figure 6 (Funnel plot), what's the meaning of the orange line?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant