Title: Mechanistic investigation and the optimal dose based on baicalin in the treatment of
ulcerative colitis--A preclinical systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 5 Date: 09 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors , please address the following points below
- While the introduction describes baicalin's known effects, it would benefit from a more detailed
explanation of how these activities are hypothesized to relate to UC. For instance, a deeper
discussion of its interaction with specific signaling pathways involved in UC pathogenesis (e.g.,
NF-#B, PI3K/AKT) would help provide more context for its potential as a therapeutic agent.
-While the study discusses the promising potential of baicalin, the introduction could benefit
from a more explicit connection between the preclinical findings and the potential for human
application. Specifically, the introduction could mention the challenges of translating findings
from animal models to humans, such as differences in metabolism, side effect profiles, and
pharmacokinetics.
-While two authors independently extracted the data, there is no mention of a third author
to resolve discrepancies, which could lead to a risk of bias in the data extraction process.
Incorporating a third independent reviewer would reduce the risk of bias and strengthen the
reliability of the extracted data.
-While the risk of bias is assessed, there is no mention of conducting sensitivity analyses to
explore how the identified biases might influence the overall results. Conducting sensitivity
analyses could provide more transparency and insight into the robustness of the findings.
-While the authors plan to evaluate publication bias using Egger's test, there is limited
information on how the presence of publication bias will be addressed if detected. The mention
of trimming and filling methods is important but requires further explanation regarding how it
will be applied and how it could affect the results.
-The authors mention that baicalin did not have a statistically significant effect on IL-17
mRNA levels, a key inflammatory factor in UC pathogenesis. While they suggest that this
discrepancy may be due to variations in experimental animal species and limited sample sizes,
this point could be explored further. More specific suggestions for future studies to address
this issue—such as recommending specific animal models, adjusting experimental protocols, or
utilizing different dosages—would help strengthen the argument and provide clearer guidance
for subsequent research.
-The discussion raises several limitations related to the study, such as the small sample size,
the language bias, and the quality of the studies included. However, there is a need to be more
specific about the impact of these limitations on the overall findings. For instance, the potential
bias introduced by the limited scope of studies (Chinese and English) could be discussed in
more detail, considering how it might influence the generalizability of the results. Additionally,
the authors acknowledge that "the origins of heterogeneity for DAI, IL-10 mRNA, and SOD
remain unidentified," but a more in-depth exploration of why this is the case could enhance the
discussion.
-While the section addresses potential safety risks associated with baicalin, it might benefit
from further elaboration on the types of adverse effects observed in the reviewed studies. ---
The mention of gastrointestinal issues, hormone disruptions, and intestinal flora disturbances
is useful, but more concrete examples or references to specific studies could strengthen the
argument. Additionally, while the authors suggest that a dose of 2000 mg/kg is safe for rats, it
would be valuable to include a more explicit discussion on the translation of this dose to human
treatments, considering the different pharmacokinetics between species.
Title: Mechanistic investigation and the optimal dose based on baicalin in the treatment of
ulcerative colitis--A preclinical systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 5 Date: 09 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors , please address the following points below
- While the introduction describes baicalin's known effects, it would benefit from a more detailed
explanation of how these activities are hypothesized to relate to UC. For instance, a deeper
discussion of its interaction with specific signaling pathways involved in UC pathogenesis (e.g.,
NF-#B, PI3K/AKT) would help provide more context for its potential as a therapeutic agent.
-While the study discusses the promising potential of baicalin, the introduction could benefit
from a more explicit connection between the preclinical findings and the potential for human
application. Specifically, the introduction could mention the challenges of translating findings
from animal models to humans, such as differences in metabolism, side effect profiles, and
pharmacokinetics.
-While two authors independently extracted the data, there is no mention of a third author
to resolve discrepancies, which could lead to a risk of bias in the data extraction process.
Incorporating a third independent reviewer would reduce the risk of bias and strengthen the
reliability of the extracted data.
-While the risk of bias is assessed, there is no mention of conducting sensitivity analyses to
explore how the identified biases might influence the overall results. Conducting sensitivity
analyses could provide more transparency and insight into the robustness of the findings.
-While the authors plan to evaluate publication bias using Egger's test, there is limited
information on how the presence of publication bias will be addressed if detected. The mention
of trimming and filling methods is important but requires further explanation regarding how it
will be applied and how it could affect the results.
-The authors mention that baicalin did not have a statistically significant effect on IL-17
mRNA levels, a key inflammatory factor in UC pathogenesis. While they suggest that this
discrepancy may be due to variations in experimental animal species and limited sample sizes,
this point could be explored further. More specific suggestions for future studies to address
this issue—such as recommending specific animal models, adjusting experimental protocols, or
utilizing different dosages—would help strengthen the argument and provide clearer guidance
for subsequent research.
-The discussion raises several limitations related to the study, such as the small sample size,
the language bias, and the quality of the studies included. However, there is a need to be more
specific about the impact of these limitations on the overall findings. For instance, the potential
bias introduced by the limited scope of studies (Chinese and English) could be discussed in
more detail, considering how it might influence the generalizability of the results. Additionally,
the authors acknowledge that "the origins of heterogeneity for DAI, IL-10 mRNA, and SOD
remain unidentified," but a more in-depth exploration of why this is the case could enhance the
discussion.
-While the section addresses potential safety risks associated with baicalin, it might benefit
from further elaboration on the types of adverse effects observed in the reviewed studies. ---
The mention of gastrointestinal issues, hormone disruptions, and intestinal flora disturbances
is useful, but more concrete examples or references to specific studies could strengthen the
argument. Additionally, while the authors suggest that a dose of 2000 mg/kg is safe for rats, it
would be valuable to include a more explicit discussion on the translation of this dose to human
treatments, considering the different pharmacokinetics between species.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Mechanistic investigation and the optimal dose based on baicalin in the treatment of
ulcerative colitis--A preclinical systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 5 Date: 09 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors , please address the following points below
- While the introduction describes baicalin's known effects, it would benefit from a more detailed
explanation of how these activities are hypothesized to relate to UC. For instance, a deeper
discussion of its interaction with specific signaling pathways involved in UC pathogenesis (e.g.,
NF-#B, PI3K/AKT) would help provide more context for its potential as a therapeutic agent.
-While the study discusses the promising potential of baicalin, the introduction could benefit
from a more explicit connection between the preclinical findings and the potential for human
application. Specifically, the introduction could mention the challenges of translating findings
from animal models to humans, such as differences in metabolism, side effect profiles, and
pharmacokinetics.
-While two authors independently extracted the data, there is no mention of a third author
to resolve discrepancies, which could lead to a risk of bias in the data extraction process.
Incorporating a third independent reviewer would reduce the risk of bias and strengthen the
reliability of the extracted data.
-While the risk of bias is assessed, there is no mention of conducting sensitivity analyses to
explore how the identified biases might influence the overall results. Conducting sensitivity
analyses could provide more transparency and insight into the robustness of the findings.
-While the authors plan to evaluate publication bias using Egger's test, there is limited
information on how the presence of publication bias will be addressed if detected. The mention
of trimming and filling methods is important but requires further explanation regarding how it
will be applied and how it could affect the results.
-The authors mention that baicalin did not have a statistically significant effect on IL-17
mRNA levels, a key inflammatory factor in UC pathogenesis. While they suggest that this
discrepancy may be due to variations in experimental animal species and limited sample sizes,
this point could be explored further. More specific suggestions for future studies to address
this issue—such as recommending specific animal models, adjusting experimental protocols, or
utilizing different dosages—would help strengthen the argument and provide clearer guidance
for subsequent research.
-The discussion raises several limitations related to the study, such as the small sample size,
the language bias, and the quality of the studies included. However, there is a need to be more
specific about the impact of these limitations on the overall findings. For instance, the potential
bias introduced by the limited scope of studies (Chinese and English) could be discussed in
more detail, considering how it might influence the generalizability of the results. Additionally,
the authors acknowledge that "the origins of heterogeneity for DAI, IL-10 mRNA, and SOD
remain unidentified," but a more in-depth exploration of why this is the case could enhance the
discussion.
-While the section addresses potential safety risks associated with baicalin, it might benefit
from further elaboration on the types of adverse effects observed in the reviewed studies. ---
The mention of gastrointestinal issues, hormone disruptions, and intestinal flora disturbances
is useful, but more concrete examples or references to specific studies could strengthen the
argument. Additionally, while the authors suggest that a dose of 2000 mg/kg is safe for rats, it
would be valuable to include a more explicit discussion on the translation of this dose to human
treatments, considering the different pharmacokinetics between species.
assistant