Reviewer's report
Title:Physical Activity is Associated with Reduced Risk of Esophageal Cancer,
Particularly Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and
Meta-Analysis
Version:2Date:14 March 2014
Reviewer: Anthony Gamboa
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
none
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Abstract page, Results section, second-to-last sentence: should read “There
were only two studies” instead of “There was only two studies”
2. Statistical Analysis section, third sentence from the end: need a “-“ in “p
values.” Should read “All p-values were two tailed.”
3. Table 1. The first study author is misspelled. It should read Huerta instead of
Huarta.
- Discretionary Revisions
4. Introduction section, first paragraph, third sentence: consider re-wording the
end of this sentence starting with, “… ranging from erosive esophagitis….”
5. Introduction section, first paragraph, fourth sentence beginning with “Routine
endoscopic surveillance…”: consider deleting the comma in this sentence and,
as I read this sentence, it should say “Routine endoscopic surveillance of
patients with BE and endoscopic eradication therapy for a subset of patients with
high-grade dysplasia are recommended” instead of ”…is recommended” since
you are referring to both endoscopic surveillance and eradication therapy.
6. Methods, Data Abstraction section, first sentence: delete comma after the
word “association.” Should read “… and estimates of association were
independently abstracted….”
7. Results, Study Flow section. Fifth sentence. The first two commas are not
needed. Consider removing these so the sentence reads: “Six studies on dietary
or socioeconomic risk factors for cancer mentioned assessing physical activity as
a covariate but did not specifically measure or report association between
physical activity and esophageal cancer per se;…”
8. Results, Sensitivity Analysis section, second sentence: Comma following
“ESCC” is not needed. Should read. “… risk of ESCC resulted in resolution….”
9. Discussion, Implications for Clinical Practice and Future Research section,
fourth sentence: the comma following “EAC” is not needed. Should read,
“…progression to EAC may help shed….”
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Physical Activity is Associated with Reduced Risk of Esophageal Cancer,
Particularly Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and
Meta-Analysis
Version:2Date:14 March 2014
Reviewer: Anthony Gamboa
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
none
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Abstract page, Results section, second-to-last sentence: should read “There
were only two studies” instead of “There was only two studies”
2. Statistical Analysis section, third sentence from the end: need a “-“ in “p
values.” Should read “All p-values were two tailed.”
3. Table 1. The first study author is misspelled. It should read Huerta instead of
Huarta.
- Discretionary Revisions
4. Introduction section, first paragraph, third sentence: consider re-wording the
end of this sentence starting with, “… ranging from erosive esophagitis….”
5. Introduction section, first paragraph, fourth sentence beginning with “Routine
endoscopic surveillance…”: consider deleting the comma in this sentence and,
as I read this sentence, it should say “Routine endoscopic surveillance of
patients with BE and endoscopic eradication therapy for a subset of patients with
high-grade dysplasia are recommended” instead of ”…is recommended” since
you are referring to both endoscopic surveillance and eradication therapy.
6. Methods, Data Abstraction section, first sentence: delete comma after the
word “association.” Should read “… and estimates of association were
independently abstracted….”
7. Results, Study Flow section. Fifth sentence. The first two commas are not
needed. Consider removing these so the sentence reads: “Six studies on dietary
or socioeconomic risk factors for cancer mentioned assessing physical activity as
a covariate but did not specifically measure or report association between
physical activity and esophageal cancer per se;…”
8. Results, Sensitivity Analysis section, second sentence: Comma following
“ESCC” is not needed. Should read. “… risk of ESCC resulted in resolution….”
9. Discussion, Implications for Clinical Practice and Future Research section,
fourth sentence: the comma following “EAC” is not needed. Should read,
“…progression to EAC may help shed….”
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Physical Activity is Associated with Reduced Risk of Esophageal Cancer,
Particularly Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and
Meta-Analysis
Version:2Date:14 March 2014
Reviewer: Anthony Gamboa
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
none
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Abstract page, Results section, second-to-last sentence: should read “There
were only two studies” instead of “There was only two studies”
2. Statistical Analysis section, third sentence from the end: need a “-“ in “p
values.” Should read “All p-values were two tailed.”
3. Table 1. The first study author is misspelled. It should read Huerta instead of
Huarta.
- Discretionary Revisions
4. Introduction section, first paragraph, third sentence: consider re-wording the
end of this sentence starting with, “… ranging from erosive esophagitis….”
5. Introduction section, first paragraph, fourth sentence beginning with “Routine
endoscopic surveillance…”: consider deleting the comma in this sentence and,
as I read this sentence, it should say “Routine endoscopic surveillance of
patients with BE and endoscopic eradication therapy for a subset of patients with
high-grade dysplasia are recommended” instead of ”…is recommended” since
you are referring to both endoscopic surveillance and eradication therapy.
6. Methods, Data Abstraction section, first sentence: delete comma after the
word “association.” Should read “… and estimates of association were
independently abstracted….”
7. Results, Study Flow section. Fifth sentence. The first two commas are not
needed. Consider removing these so the sentence reads: “Six studies on dietary
or socioeconomic risk factors for cancer mentioned assessing physical activity as
a covariate but did not specifically measure or report association between
physical activity and esophageal cancer per se;…”
8. Results, Sensitivity Analysis section, second sentence: Comma following
“ESCC” is not needed. Should read. “… risk of ESCC resulted in resolution….”
9. Discussion, Implications for Clinical Practice and Future Research section,
fourth sentence: the comma following “EAC” is not needed. Should read,
“…progression to EAC may help shed….”
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant