Title: Association between the immune-inflammation index and the severity and clinical
outcomes of patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 06 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the efforts that you put into preparing this manuscript.
Comments
1. The abstract and conclusion sections state that NLR, PLR, LMR, etc., are “effective
predictors,” but some of the analyses (especially LMR and PLR) either showed inconsistent
significance or instability in sensitivity analysis. The authors should tone down these conclusions
and be more precise
2. Although a random-effects model was used, the substantial heterogeneity reported warrants
further exploration. Consider adding meta-regression if possible, or expanding the subgroup
analyses to include publication year, geographic region (Asia vs non-Asia), and disease type
more distinctly.
3. The naming of ratios is inconsistent throughout the text (e.g., sometimes written as
“eosinophil*neutrophil-to-lymphocytes ratio,” other times as “ENLR”). Please standardize
throughout.
4. There are frequent grammatical errors and awkward phrasings (e.g., “ostracized” for excluded;
“proven to lower” instead of “shown to reduce”). A thorough language editing is needed.
5. Consider changing phrases like “sufferers” to “patients” for professionalism and neutrality.
6. Some abbreviations (e.g., MDA, NO) appear late in the text without prior definition. Define
all abbreviations at first use.
Title: Association between the immune-inflammation index and the severity and clinical
outcomes of patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 06 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the efforts that you put into preparing this manuscript.
Comments
1. The abstract and conclusion sections state that NLR, PLR, LMR, etc., are “effective
predictors,” but some of the analyses (especially LMR and PLR) either showed inconsistent
significance or instability in sensitivity analysis. The authors should tone down these conclusions
and be more precise
2. Although a random-effects model was used, the substantial heterogeneity reported warrants
further exploration. Consider adding meta-regression if possible, or expanding the subgroup
analyses to include publication year, geographic region (Asia vs non-Asia), and disease type
more distinctly.
3. The naming of ratios is inconsistent throughout the text (e.g., sometimes written as
“eosinophil*neutrophil-to-lymphocytes ratio,” other times as “ENLR”). Please standardize
throughout.
4. There are frequent grammatical errors and awkward phrasings (e.g., “ostracized” for excluded;
“proven to lower” instead of “shown to reduce”). A thorough language editing is needed.
5. Consider changing phrases like “sufferers” to “patients” for professionalism and neutrality.
6. Some abbreviations (e.g., MDA, NO) appear late in the text without prior definition. Define
all abbreviations at first use.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Association between the immune-inflammation index and the severity and clinical
outcomes of patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 06 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the efforts that you put into preparing this manuscript.
Comments
1. The abstract and conclusion sections state that NLR, PLR, LMR, etc., are “effective
predictors,” but some of the analyses (especially LMR and PLR) either showed inconsistent
significance or instability in sensitivity analysis. The authors should tone down these conclusions
and be more precise
2. Although a random-effects model was used, the substantial heterogeneity reported warrants
further exploration. Consider adding meta-regression if possible, or expanding the subgroup
analyses to include publication year, geographic region (Asia vs non-Asia), and disease type
more distinctly.
3. The naming of ratios is inconsistent throughout the text (e.g., sometimes written as
“eosinophil*neutrophil-to-lymphocytes ratio,” other times as “ENLR”). Please standardize
throughout.
4. There are frequent grammatical errors and awkward phrasings (e.g., “ostracized” for excluded;
“proven to lower” instead of “shown to reduce”). A thorough language editing is needed.
5. Consider changing phrases like “sufferers” to “patients” for professionalism and neutrality.
6. Some abbreviations (e.g., MDA, NO) appear late in the text without prior definition. Define
all abbreviations at first use.
assistant