Title: Efficacy and Safety of Pembrolizumab in Advanced Gastric and Gastroesophageal
Junction Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 3 Date: 03 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
I'm truly grateful to the editor for inviting me to review this manuscript. I read it with great
interest and have some questions that need to be clarified by the author.
1. For this pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis, could you provide the registration
number?
2. The authors need to add search terms in the "search strategy section" to facilitate readers'
understanding.
3. My suggestion is to adopt the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool to evaluate the included
RCT studies, and use the more preferred ROBINS-I to assess non-randomized studies.
4. In the inclusion criteria section of the text, item "e" indicates that retrospective literature can
be included. Does this conflict with the title?
5. I don't understand why the 26th citation is an "INVALID CITATION".
6. When describing the forest plot, in addition to listing the effect size and confidence interval,
the author should further indicate whether the results of each study in the forest plot are
significant, and describe the manifestation of heterogeneity, etc., to help readers understand
better.
7. In the "introduction section", the author has described the disease burden of advanced gastric
cancer and gastroesophageal junction cancer, the limitations of existing treatment strategies, the
rise of immunotherapy, and the mechanism of action of pembrolizumab. However, the current
research status of meta-analysis in this field has not been mentioned. It is recommended to
supplement relevant content to highlight the necessity and innovation of this study.
8. When discussing the limitations, regarding the impact of potential publication bias, in addition
to mentioning the publication tendency of research results, it is advisable to further analyze the
possible affected results and their extent in combination with the specific circumstances of this
study, so as to make the discussion more targeted.
Title: Efficacy and Safety of Pembrolizumab in Advanced Gastric and Gastroesophageal
Junction Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 3 Date: 03 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
I'm truly grateful to the editor for inviting me to review this manuscript. I read it with great
interest and have some questions that need to be clarified by the author.
1. For this pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis, could you provide the registration
number?
2. The authors need to add search terms in the "search strategy section" to facilitate readers'
understanding.
3. My suggestion is to adopt the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool to evaluate the included
RCT studies, and use the more preferred ROBINS-I to assess non-randomized studies.
4. In the inclusion criteria section of the text, item "e" indicates that retrospective literature can
be included. Does this conflict with the title?
5. I don't understand why the 26th citation is an "INVALID CITATION".
6. When describing the forest plot, in addition to listing the effect size and confidence interval,
the author should further indicate whether the results of each study in the forest plot are
significant, and describe the manifestation of heterogeneity, etc., to help readers understand
better.
7. In the "introduction section", the author has described the disease burden of advanced gastric
cancer and gastroesophageal junction cancer, the limitations of existing treatment strategies, the
rise of immunotherapy, and the mechanism of action of pembrolizumab. However, the current
research status of meta-analysis in this field has not been mentioned. It is recommended to
supplement relevant content to highlight the necessity and innovation of this study.
8. When discussing the limitations, regarding the impact of potential publication bias, in addition
to mentioning the publication tendency of research results, it is advisable to further analyze the
possible affected results and their extent in combination with the specific circumstances of this
study, so as to make the discussion more targeted.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Efficacy and Safety of Pembrolizumab in Advanced Gastric and Gastroesophageal
Junction Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 3 Date: 03 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
I'm truly grateful to the editor for inviting me to review this manuscript. I read it with great
interest and have some questions that need to be clarified by the author.
1. For this pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis, could you provide the registration
number?
2. The authors need to add search terms in the "search strategy section" to facilitate readers'
understanding.
3. My suggestion is to adopt the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool to evaluate the included
RCT studies, and use the more preferred ROBINS-I to assess non-randomized studies.
4. In the inclusion criteria section of the text, item "e" indicates that retrospective literature can
be included. Does this conflict with the title?
5. I don't understand why the 26th citation is an "INVALID CITATION".
6. When describing the forest plot, in addition to listing the effect size and confidence interval,
the author should further indicate whether the results of each study in the forest plot are
significant, and describe the manifestation of heterogeneity, etc., to help readers understand
better.
7. In the "introduction section", the author has described the disease burden of advanced gastric
cancer and gastroesophageal junction cancer, the limitations of existing treatment strategies, the
rise of immunotherapy, and the mechanism of action of pembrolizumab. However, the current
research status of meta-analysis in this field has not been mentioned. It is recommended to
supplement relevant content to highlight the necessity and innovation of this study.
8. When discussing the limitations, regarding the impact of potential publication bias, in addition
to mentioning the publication tendency of research results, it is advisable to further analyze the
possible affected results and their extent in combination with the specific circumstances of this
study, so as to make the discussion more targeted.
assistant