Title: Aberrant SNHG expression predicts poor prognosis in esophageal cancer using meta-
analysis and bioinformatics analysis
Version: 2 Date: 01 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Mohamed H. Zidan
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Re: Aberrant SNHG expression predicts poor prognosis in esophageal cancer using meta-
analysis and bioinformatics analysis
I have carefully reviewed your manuscript and the accompanying responses to previous
reviewer comments. Your investigation into the prognostic significance of SNHG expression in
esophageal cancer is commendable, offering valuable insights into its potential as a biomarker.
The meta-analysis and bioinformatics approach adopted in this study are rigorous and add
significant depth to the current understanding of SNHG's role in esophageal cancer. However,
several aspects of the manuscript merit further clarification and refinement.
The results presented in the manuscript are detailed and include analyses of various
clinicopathological parameters, such as TNM stage, lymph node metastasis, and tumor size.
The association of high SNHG expression with advanced TNM stage, larger tumors, and
lymph node metastasis is clinically significant and supports the potential utility of SNHG as
a prognostic indicator. However, the statistical analysis for overall survival (HR: 1.392, CI:
0.876–1.908) lacks significance due to the wide confidence intervals. This has been addressed in
the discussion, but the narrative would benefit from a clearer articulation of the implications of
these findings. The subgroup analyses for SNHG expression levels are insightful, particularly the
differential roles of SNHG2, SNHG5, and SNHG12. However, the heterogeneity inherent in the
study populations and methodologies across the included studies should be further emphasized
as a limitation.
The figures and tables included in the manuscript are detailed and well-organized. The forest
plots and funnel plots effectively illustrate the relationships analyzed, and the subgroup analyses
add robustness to the results. However, Figure 11, which depicts the biological pathways
involving SNHG, requires further clarification to ensure readers can fully grasp the molecular
mechanisms described. The tables summarizing study characteristics, quality assessments,
and subgroup analyses are exhaustive but could benefit from clearer legends for ease of
interpretation.
Your responses to previous reviewer comments are thorough and address key concerns, such as
the inclusion of multivariate analyses and the clarification of methodological details. However,
further efforts to contextualize your findings within the broader meta-analytic results would
enhance the manuscript's coherence. The lack of a pathological classification of esophageal
cancer subtypes in the included studies is a notable limitation that impacts the specificity of your
findings. This should be highlighted prominently in the introduction and conclusion to avoid
overgeneralization of the results.
Your study is a valuable contribution to the field, but the manuscript would benefit from
revisions that address the limitations and enhance the clarity of the results.  Recommending the
inclusion of diverse populations in future studies is essential to validate the findings and ensure
their broader applicability.
Title: Aberrant SNHG expression predicts poor prognosis in esophageal cancer using meta-
analysis and bioinformatics analysis
Version: 2 Date: 01 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Mohamed H. Zidan
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Re: Aberrant SNHG expression predicts poor prognosis in esophageal cancer using meta-
analysis and bioinformatics analysis
I have carefully reviewed your manuscript and the accompanying responses to previous
reviewer comments. Your investigation into the prognostic significance of SNHG expression in
esophageal cancer is commendable, offering valuable insights into its potential as a biomarker.
The meta-analysis and bioinformatics approach adopted in this study are rigorous and add
significant depth to the current understanding of SNHG's role in esophageal cancer. However,
several aspects of the manuscript merit further clarification and refinement.
The results presented in the manuscript are detailed and include analyses of various
clinicopathological parameters, such as TNM stage, lymph node metastasis, and tumor size.
The association of high SNHG expression with advanced TNM stage, larger tumors, and
lymph node metastasis is clinically significant and supports the potential utility of SNHG as
a prognostic indicator. However, the statistical analysis for overall survival (HR: 1.392, CI:
0.876–1.908) lacks significance due to the wide confidence intervals. This has been addressed in
the discussion, but the narrative would benefit from a clearer articulation of the implications of
these findings. The subgroup analyses for SNHG expression levels are insightful, particularly the
differential roles of SNHG2, SNHG5, and SNHG12. However, the heterogeneity inherent in the
study populations and methodologies across the included studies should be further emphasized
as a limitation.
The figures and tables included in the manuscript are detailed and well-organized. The forest
plots and funnel plots effectively illustrate the relationships analyzed, and the subgroup analyses
add robustness to the results. However, Figure 11, which depicts the biological pathways
involving SNHG, requires further clarification to ensure readers can fully grasp the molecular
mechanisms described. The tables summarizing study characteristics, quality assessments,
and subgroup analyses are exhaustive but could benefit from clearer legends for ease of
interpretation.
Your responses to previous reviewer comments are thorough and address key concerns, such as
the inclusion of multivariate analyses and the clarification of methodological details. However,
further efforts to contextualize your findings within the broader meta-analytic results would
enhance the manuscript's coherence. The lack of a pathological classification of esophageal
cancer subtypes in the included studies is a notable limitation that impacts the specificity of your
findings. This should be highlighted prominently in the introduction and conclusion to avoid
overgeneralization of the results.
Your study is a valuable contribution to the field, but the manuscript would benefit from
revisions that address the limitations and enhance the clarity of the results.  Recommending the
inclusion of diverse populations in future studies is essential to validate the findings and ensure
their broader applicability.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Aberrant SNHG expression predicts poor prognosis in esophageal cancer using meta-
analysis and bioinformatics analysis
Version: 2 Date: 01 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Mohamed H. Zidan
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Re: Aberrant SNHG expression predicts poor prognosis in esophageal cancer using meta-
analysis and bioinformatics analysis
I have carefully reviewed your manuscript and the accompanying responses to previous
reviewer comments. Your investigation into the prognostic significance of SNHG expression in
esophageal cancer is commendable, offering valuable insights into its potential as a biomarker.
The meta-analysis and bioinformatics approach adopted in this study are rigorous and add
significant depth to the current understanding of SNHG's role in esophageal cancer. However,
several aspects of the manuscript merit further clarification and refinement.
The results presented in the manuscript are detailed and include analyses of various
clinicopathological parameters, such as TNM stage, lymph node metastasis, and tumor size.
The association of high SNHG expression with advanced TNM stage, larger tumors, and
lymph node metastasis is clinically significant and supports the potential utility of SNHG as
a prognostic indicator. However, the statistical analysis for overall survival (HR: 1.392, CI:
0.876–1.908) lacks significance due to the wide confidence intervals. This has been addressed in
the discussion, but the narrative would benefit from a clearer articulation of the implications of
these findings. The subgroup analyses for SNHG expression levels are insightful, particularly the
differential roles of SNHG2, SNHG5, and SNHG12. However, the heterogeneity inherent in the
study populations and methodologies across the included studies should be further emphasized
as a limitation.
The figures and tables included in the manuscript are detailed and well-organized. The forest
plots and funnel plots effectively illustrate the relationships analyzed, and the subgroup analyses
add robustness to the results. However, Figure 11, which depicts the biological pathways
involving SNHG, requires further clarification to ensure readers can fully grasp the molecular
mechanisms described. The tables summarizing study characteristics, quality assessments,
and subgroup analyses are exhaustive but could benefit from clearer legends for ease of
interpretation.
Your responses to previous reviewer comments are thorough and address key concerns, such as
the inclusion of multivariate analyses and the clarification of methodological details. However,
further efforts to contextualize your findings within the broader meta-analytic results would
enhance the manuscript's coherence. The lack of a pathological classification of esophageal
cancer subtypes in the included studies is a notable limitation that impacts the specificity of your
findings. This should be highlighted prominently in the introduction and conclusion to avoid
overgeneralization of the results.
Your study is a valuable contribution to the field, but the manuscript would benefit from
revisions that address the limitations and enhance the clarity of the results.  Recommending the
inclusion of diverse populations in future studies is essential to validate the findings and ensure
their broader applicability.
assistant