Title: Comparison of different second line treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a
systematic review and network meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 26 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Qiancheng Hu
Reviewer's report:
This is a good idea, but why did you choose this topic?.  The methods seem to simple. To realize
a comprehensive evaluation, I advised to add   risk of bias, quality of evidence, and publication
bias in this study.  I also advised to add subgroup analysis and sensitive analysis in the revised
manuscript.
Toxicity was also very important, so the secondary endpoint might include it. The SCURA
didnot display in the results. A higher SUCRA value indicates a better effect.
Throughout the manuscript,  there are numerous typo’s and grammatical mistakes. The text
should be edited by a native English speaker.
Title: Comparison of different second line treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a
systematic review and network meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 26 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Qiancheng Hu
Reviewer's report:
This is a good idea, but why did you choose this topic?.  The methods seem to simple. To realize
a comprehensive evaluation, I advised to add   risk of bias, quality of evidence, and publication
bias in this study.  I also advised to add subgroup analysis and sensitive analysis in the revised
manuscript.
Toxicity was also very important, so the secondary endpoint might include it. The SCURA
didnot display in the results. A higher SUCRA value indicates a better effect.
Throughout the manuscript,  there are numerous typo’s and grammatical mistakes. The text
should be edited by a native English speaker.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Comparison of different second line treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a
systematic review and network meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 26 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Qiancheng Hu
Reviewer's report:
This is a good idea, but why did you choose this topic?.  The methods seem to simple. To realize
a comprehensive evaluation, I advised to add   risk of bias, quality of evidence, and publication
bias in this study.  I also advised to add subgroup analysis and sensitive analysis in the revised
manuscript.
Toxicity was also very important, so the secondary endpoint might include it. The SCURA
didnot display in the results. A higher SUCRA value indicates a better effect.
Throughout the manuscript,  there are numerous typo’s and grammatical mistakes. The text
should be edited by a native English speaker.
assistant