Title: Effect of Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 and Sulfonylurea on Colorectal Cancer Development:
A Case-Control Study
Version: 2 Date: 07 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors
I read your manuscript. It is clear that you have spent a lot of time to do this. Although you
have done a very interesting work, but in my opinion, unfortunately, you have not been able to
present it well. Below I mention some points
1- Despite the fact that in the title of your article you emphasize the role of Sulfonylurea
Consumption on colorectal cancer, you have not talked much about it. For example, it would
have been better if you had provided explanations about it in the introduction section, or
emphasized this issue more in the results section.
2- The nature of your article is case-control and the results of logistic regression analysis show
the odds ratio, but you have expressed all your interpretations based on incidence and risk.
3- It seems that the text of the article is not well adjusted in line with the purpose
4- abstract Not well written
5- The text of the article needs native editing
Introduction:
1- The last lines of the last paragraph are not related to the introduction and should be transferred
to the method. “This study will involve 800 cases of colorectal cancer and 800 controls adjusted
for age, sex, and other relevant factors.”
2- The last few sentences of the introduction should be transferred to the conclusion.
3- Please provide explanations regarding Sulfonylurea Consumption on in the introduction
section.” This results may guide future research into the mechanisms underlying the observed
associations and the development of tailored screening and prevention strategies for individuals
with these risk factors.”
methods:
1- In the text of the article, you have repeated the names of hospitals several times, while there is
no need to repeat them. Just at the beginning of the method, it is enough to explain once which
hospitals the samples were taken from.
2- The reference for selecting cases and controls should be similar. Why did you choose cases
from two hospitals but controls from one hospital? If there is no logical justification, you should
explain this problem in the limitations of the study.
3- Is high blood pressure a risk factor for colorectal cancer? Do you have a reference in this
regard?
4- Please clearly explain the inclusion and exclusion criteria
5-   What does the sentence "841 potentially desirable controls were selected by multiple controls
of the same type and approximately " mean? what do you mean
6-   The explanations provided in the data analysis section are not accurate and complete and are
not well categorized. There are also mistakes, for example, independent t-test and independent
test are the same
Results:
1- All numbers in the text and tables should be written in English
2- Why did you write the average age in months??? I think it is the year
3- Please unify the terms throughout the text. For example, say cases and controls. In some
places, you have mentioned patients
4-   In the data analysis, you must explain what variables (in what sense-what are their
characteristics) have you included in the multivariate analysis.
5- You have written in the entire text the factors affecting the incidence. In general, you have
used the terms risk or incidence, while your article is a case-control and shows the odds ratio.
Instead of the occurrence of the disease, you should say the chance of contracting the disease
6- “Corresponding ci”: What do you mean?
7-  The results should be written in categories. First, in a descriptive results paragraph. The
second paragraph: t-test and … results and finally logistic regression results
8- What do you mean by numerical stage?
9- The information related to table number 3 is not given any explanation in the text of the results
and it is not clear what this table shows.
10-  Does table number one show the information related to chi square analysis?
11-   It is better to write the title of table number two as the results of logistic regression to
identify colorectal predictors
12- The titles of the charts should be written below them
13- Do not use the word risk in the titles of the tables. Your results represent the odds ratio
14- Table No. 5 does not show the effect of diabetes on the incidence of colorectal cancer, but
only shows the results of chi square.
15- The references in the text of the article are not the same, some are Vancouver, some are
Harvard
Discussion:
1- Why did you write the number of controls as 810 in the whole text, but 811 in the discussion
2- In the discussion, only the results related to multivariate regression should be stated and there
is no need to write the confidence interval and OR values
3- Where you wrote that the connection was not seen because your controls were selected from
the hospital. What justification do you have for these sentences?
Title: Effect of Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 and Sulfonylurea on Colorectal Cancer Development:
A Case-Control Study
Version: 2 Date: 07 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors
I read your manuscript. It is clear that you have spent a lot of time to do this. Although you
have done a very interesting work, but in my opinion, unfortunately, you have not been able to
present it well. Below I mention some points
1- Despite the fact that in the title of your article you emphasize the role of Sulfonylurea
Consumption on colorectal cancer, you have not talked much about it. For example, it would
have been better if you had provided explanations about it in the introduction section, or
emphasized this issue more in the results section.
2- The nature of your article is case-control and the results of logistic regression analysis show
the odds ratio, but you have expressed all your interpretations based on incidence and risk.
3- It seems that the text of the article is not well adjusted in line with the purpose
4- abstract Not well written
5- The text of the article needs native editing
Introduction:
1- The last lines of the last paragraph are not related to the introduction and should be transferred
to the method. “This study will involve 800 cases of colorectal cancer and 800 controls adjusted
for age, sex, and other relevant factors.”
2- The last few sentences of the introduction should be transferred to the conclusion.
3- Please provide explanations regarding Sulfonylurea Consumption on in the introduction
section.” This results may guide future research into the mechanisms underlying the observed
associations and the development of tailored screening and prevention strategies for individuals
with these risk factors.”
methods:
1- In the text of the article, you have repeated the names of hospitals several times, while there is
no need to repeat them. Just at the beginning of the method, it is enough to explain once which
hospitals the samples were taken from.
2- The reference for selecting cases and controls should be similar. Why did you choose cases
from two hospitals but controls from one hospital? If there is no logical justification, you should
explain this problem in the limitations of the study.
3- Is high blood pressure a risk factor for colorectal cancer? Do you have a reference in this
regard?
4- Please clearly explain the inclusion and exclusion criteria
5-   What does the sentence "841 potentially desirable controls were selected by multiple controls
of the same type and approximately " mean? what do you mean
6-   The explanations provided in the data analysis section are not accurate and complete and are
not well categorized. There are also mistakes, for example, independent t-test and independent
test are the same
Results:
1- All numbers in the text and tables should be written in English
2- Why did you write the average age in months??? I think it is the year
3- Please unify the terms throughout the text. For example, say cases and controls. In some
places, you have mentioned patients
4-   In the data analysis, you must explain what variables (in what sense-what are their
characteristics) have you included in the multivariate analysis.
5- You have written in the entire text the factors affecting the incidence. In general, you have
used the terms risk or incidence, while your article is a case-control and shows the odds ratio.
Instead of the occurrence of the disease, you should say the chance of contracting the disease
6- “Corresponding ci”: What do you mean?
7-  The results should be written in categories. First, in a descriptive results paragraph. The
second paragraph: t-test and … results and finally logistic regression results
8- What do you mean by numerical stage?
9- The information related to table number 3 is not given any explanation in the text of the results
and it is not clear what this table shows.
10-  Does table number one show the information related to chi square analysis?
11-   It is better to write the title of table number two as the results of logistic regression to
identify colorectal predictors
12- The titles of the charts should be written below them
13- Do not use the word risk in the titles of the tables. Your results represent the odds ratio
14- Table No. 5 does not show the effect of diabetes on the incidence of colorectal cancer, but
only shows the results of chi square.
15- The references in the text of the article are not the same, some are Vancouver, some are
Harvard
Discussion:
1- Why did you write the number of controls as 810 in the whole text, but 811 in the discussion
2- In the discussion, only the results related to multivariate regression should be stated and there
is no need to write the confidence interval and OR values
3- Where you wrote that the connection was not seen because your controls were selected from
the hospital. What justification do you have for these sentences?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Effect of Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 and Sulfonylurea on Colorectal Cancer Development:
A Case-Control Study
Version: 2 Date: 07 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors
I read your manuscript. It is clear that you have spent a lot of time to do this. Although you
have done a very interesting work, but in my opinion, unfortunately, you have not been able to
present it well. Below I mention some points
1- Despite the fact that in the title of your article you emphasize the role of Sulfonylurea
Consumption on colorectal cancer, you have not talked much about it. For example, it would
have been better if you had provided explanations about it in the introduction section, or
emphasized this issue more in the results section.
2- The nature of your article is case-control and the results of logistic regression analysis show
the odds ratio, but you have expressed all your interpretations based on incidence and risk.
3- It seems that the text of the article is not well adjusted in line with the purpose
4- abstract Not well written
5- The text of the article needs native editing
Introduction:
1- The last lines of the last paragraph are not related to the introduction and should be transferred
to the method. “This study will involve 800 cases of colorectal cancer and 800 controls adjusted
for age, sex, and other relevant factors.”
2- The last few sentences of the introduction should be transferred to the conclusion.
3- Please provide explanations regarding Sulfonylurea Consumption on in the introduction
section.” This results may guide future research into the mechanisms underlying the observed
associations and the development of tailored screening and prevention strategies for individuals
with these risk factors.”
methods:
1- In the text of the article, you have repeated the names of hospitals several times, while there is
no need to repeat them. Just at the beginning of the method, it is enough to explain once which
hospitals the samples were taken from.
2- The reference for selecting cases and controls should be similar. Why did you choose cases
from two hospitals but controls from one hospital? If there is no logical justification, you should
explain this problem in the limitations of the study.
3- Is high blood pressure a risk factor for colorectal cancer? Do you have a reference in this
regard?
4- Please clearly explain the inclusion and exclusion criteria
5-   What does the sentence "841 potentially desirable controls were selected by multiple controls
of the same type and approximately " mean? what do you mean
6-   The explanations provided in the data analysis section are not accurate and complete and are
not well categorized. There are also mistakes, for example, independent t-test and independent
test are the same
Results:
1- All numbers in the text and tables should be written in English
2- Why did you write the average age in months??? I think it is the year
3- Please unify the terms throughout the text. For example, say cases and controls. In some
places, you have mentioned patients
4-   In the data analysis, you must explain what variables (in what sense-what are their
characteristics) have you included in the multivariate analysis.
5- You have written in the entire text the factors affecting the incidence. In general, you have
used the terms risk or incidence, while your article is a case-control and shows the odds ratio.
Instead of the occurrence of the disease, you should say the chance of contracting the disease
6- “Corresponding ci”: What do you mean?
7-  The results should be written in categories. First, in a descriptive results paragraph. The
second paragraph: t-test and … results and finally logistic regression results
8- What do you mean by numerical stage?
9- The information related to table number 3 is not given any explanation in the text of the results
and it is not clear what this table shows.
10-  Does table number one show the information related to chi square analysis?
11-   It is better to write the title of table number two as the results of logistic regression to
identify colorectal predictors
12- The titles of the charts should be written below them
13- Do not use the word risk in the titles of the tables. Your results represent the odds ratio
14- Table No. 5 does not show the effect of diabetes on the incidence of colorectal cancer, but
only shows the results of chi square.
15- The references in the text of the article are not the same, some are Vancouver, some are
Harvard
Discussion:
1- Why did you write the number of controls as 810 in the whole text, but 811 in the discussion
2- In the discussion, only the results related to multivariate regression should be stated and there
is no need to write the confidence interval and OR values
3- Where you wrote that the connection was not seen because your controls were selected from
the hospital. What justification do you have for these sentences?
assistant