Title: INCIDENCE AND RISK FACTORS FOR COLORECTAL CANCER IN AFRICA: A
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Version: 0 Date: 06 Jan 2024
Reviewer:  Alfred Jatho
Reviewer's report:
The study was appropriately designed, conducted and analyzed using a suitable meta-analysis
model – the DerSimonian and Laird method of random-effects model that accounts for the
heterogeneity across the included studies. The authors compared their findings well with the
current findings in the field suggested the implications of the findings for future colorectal cancer
research and discussed the potential applications. The study conclusion is supported by the data
presented and stated some of the major limitations of the study.
However, in the method, the authors stated that the odds ratio was considered as an estimate of
relative risk for the CRC risk factors and the Meta-analysis was performed to report proportion,
relative risk, and their respective pooled estimate. Also, in table two showing characteristics of
all studies investigating RFs of CRC, lower-evidence studies such as cross-sectional studies, and
studies that may not report odds ratio or relative risk such as case series and others that had no
study design stated were included. In this situation the authors need to clarify in the data analysis
section which specific study designs were considered for computing the pooled estimate of the
CRC incidence, and which specific study designs were considered for computing the pooled
estimate of the CRC RR / ORs. This is because the difference in the strength of evidence and
which study designs are appropriate for estimating incidence or RRs/ORs may grossly affect
the overall effect size. Case-control studies cohort studies and RCTs are more suitable for the
inclusion of meta-analysis to provide the pooled RR. For cross-sectional studies to be included
in the meta-analysis, it is better if it was an analytical cross-sectional study.
Finally, minor English language editing is needed. For example, the authors need to remove the
full stop in the title of the study and correct the spelling of “DerSimoniane” to “DerSimonian”,
among others.
Title: INCIDENCE AND RISK FACTORS FOR COLORECTAL CANCER IN AFRICA: A
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Version: 0 Date: 06 Jan 2024
Reviewer:  Alfred Jatho
Reviewer's report:
The study was appropriately designed, conducted and analyzed using a suitable meta-analysis
model – the DerSimonian and Laird method of random-effects model that accounts for the
heterogeneity across the included studies. The authors compared their findings well with the
current findings in the field suggested the implications of the findings for future colorectal cancer
research and discussed the potential applications. The study conclusion is supported by the data
presented and stated some of the major limitations of the study.
However, in the method, the authors stated that the odds ratio was considered as an estimate of
relative risk for the CRC risk factors and the Meta-analysis was performed to report proportion,
relative risk, and their respective pooled estimate. Also, in table two showing characteristics of
all studies investigating RFs of CRC, lower-evidence studies such as cross-sectional studies, and
studies that may not report odds ratio or relative risk such as case series and others that had no
study design stated were included. In this situation the authors need to clarify in the data analysis
section which specific study designs were considered for computing the pooled estimate of the
CRC incidence, and which specific study designs were considered for computing the pooled
estimate of the CRC RR / ORs. This is because the difference in the strength of evidence and
which study designs are appropriate for estimating incidence or RRs/ORs may grossly affect
the overall effect size. Case-control studies cohort studies and RCTs are more suitable for the
inclusion of meta-analysis to provide the pooled RR. For cross-sectional studies to be included
in the meta-analysis, it is better if it was an analytical cross-sectional study.
Finally, minor English language editing is needed. For example, the authors need to remove the
full stop in the title of the study and correct the spelling of “DerSimoniane” to “DerSimonian”,
among others.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: INCIDENCE AND RISK FACTORS FOR COLORECTAL CANCER IN AFRICA: A
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Version: 0 Date: 06 Jan 2024
Reviewer:  Alfred Jatho
Reviewer's report:
The study was appropriately designed, conducted and analyzed using a suitable meta-analysis
model – the DerSimonian and Laird method of random-effects model that accounts for the
heterogeneity across the included studies. The authors compared their findings well with the
current findings in the field suggested the implications of the findings for future colorectal cancer
research and discussed the potential applications. The study conclusion is supported by the data
presented and stated some of the major limitations of the study.
However, in the method, the authors stated that the odds ratio was considered as an estimate of
relative risk for the CRC risk factors and the Meta-analysis was performed to report proportion,
relative risk, and their respective pooled estimate. Also, in table two showing characteristics of
all studies investigating RFs of CRC, lower-evidence studies such as cross-sectional studies, and
studies that may not report odds ratio or relative risk such as case series and others that had no
study design stated were included. In this situation the authors need to clarify in the data analysis
section which specific study designs were considered for computing the pooled estimate of the
CRC incidence, and which specific study designs were considered for computing the pooled
estimate of the CRC RR / ORs. This is because the difference in the strength of evidence and
which study designs are appropriate for estimating incidence or RRs/ORs may grossly affect
the overall effect size. Case-control studies cohort studies and RCTs are more suitable for the
inclusion of meta-analysis to provide the pooled RR. For cross-sectional studies to be included
in the meta-analysis, it is better if it was an analytical cross-sectional study.
Finally, minor English language editing is needed. For example, the authors need to remove the
full stop in the title of the study and correct the spelling of “DerSimoniane” to “DerSimonian”,
among others.
assistant