Title: Prevalence of Autoimmune Pancreatitis in Pancreatic Resection for Suspected
Malignancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Version: 6 Date: 19 May 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?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have answered all the queries except one i.e. they did not
include all relevant weaknesses of their study, the major being meta-analysis of observational
studies. In addition, I also do not see the publication bias being reported. This should be reported
using bother funnel plots and Egger's regression with p-value for at least the primary outcome.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Further add weaknesses to their study. Perform publication bias analysis.
Title: Prevalence of Autoimmune Pancreatitis in Pancreatic Resection for Suspected
Malignancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Version: 6 Date: 19 May 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?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have answered all the queries except one i.e. they did not
include all relevant weaknesses of their study, the major being meta-analysis of observational
studies. In addition, I also do not see the publication bias being reported. This should be reported
using bother funnel plots and Egger's regression with p-value for at least the primary outcome.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Further add weaknesses to their study. Perform publication bias analysis.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Prevalence of Autoimmune Pancreatitis in Pancreatic Resection for Suspected
Malignancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Version: 6 Date: 19 May 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?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have answered all the queries except one i.e. they did not
include all relevant weaknesses of their study, the major being meta-analysis of observational
studies. In addition, I also do not see the publication bias being reported. This should be reported
using bother funnel plots and Egger's regression with p-value for at least the primary outcome.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Further add weaknesses to their study. Perform publication bias analysis.
assistant