Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Prognostic and clinical significance of syndecan -1 in colorectal cancer: a meta -analysis  
 
Version: 1 Date: 18 Sep 2015  
 
Reviewer: Jeroen Goos  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Overall, the added revisions should be checked for correct use of the English language. Please 
address the following remaining issues regarding the (replies to the) comments that were given 
earlier.  
 
1) A. Check  English.  
 
B. There seems to be some discrepancy between the columns "Follow up" and "Clinical 
parameters assessment (number)". That is, for some studies a follow up period is 
mentioned, whereas no "F" is denoted and vice versa (e.g. for Qi et al there is an "F", but 
for follow up there is a "NA").  
 
2) A. Check English.  
 
B. The authors provide a clear and sufficient answer to the comment. Is it mentioned 
somewhere in the manuscript that expression was divided into two groups by the authors?  
 
3) OK. 
 
4) A. C heck English.  
 
B. A paragraph has now been added named "Sensitivity analysis", however, a header 
named "Sensitivity analysis and publication bias" already exists. Please combine these 
paragraphs.  
 
5) OK. Check English.  
 
6) A. Check English.  
 
B. The sentence "In the present … and CRC", which was added to the second paragraph 
of the results, may be added to the Methods section rather than the Results section.  
 
C. According to the new analysis using AJCC stages, expression of syndecan -1 is higher  
in later AJCC stages, whereas in the abstract it is stated that loss of syndecan -1 is 
associated with CRC development. How do the authors explain this apparent 
discrepancy?  
 
7) OK. Check English  
 
8) The sentence "Our results suggest that loss of … CRC pro gression" still needs further 
elaboration. The results might suggest that syndecan -1 plays a role in early stages of CRC 
development rather than in later stages, but from the analyses in the manuscript it cannot 
be concluded that syndecan -1 is not (functio nally) involved in CRC progression  
 
9) OK. Check English  
 
10) OK. Check English  
 
11) OK. 
 
12) OK. Check English  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additiona l statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
 
 
 
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publ ication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I  declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my  report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access C reative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Prognostic and clinical significance of syndecan -1 in colorectal cancer: a meta -analysis  
 
Version: 1 Date: 18 Sep 2015  
 
Reviewer: Jeroen Goos  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Overall, the added revisions should be checked for correct use of the English language. Please 
address the following remaining issues regarding the (replies to the) comments that were given 
earlier.  
 
1) A. Check  English.  
 
B. There seems to be some discrepancy between the columns "Follow up" and "Clinical 
parameters assessment (number)". That is, for some studies a follow up period is 
mentioned, whereas no "F" is denoted and vice versa (e.g. for Qi et al there is an "F", but 
for follow up there is a "NA").  
 
2) A. Check English.  
 
B. The authors provide a clear and sufficient answer to the comment. Is it mentioned 
somewhere in the manuscript that expression was divided into two groups by the authors?  
 
3) OK. 
 
4) A. C heck English.  
 
B. A paragraph has now been added named "Sensitivity analysis", however, a header 
named "Sensitivity analysis and publication bias" already exists. Please combine these 
paragraphs.  
 
5) OK. Check English.  
 
6) A. Check English.  
 
B. The sentence "In the present … and CRC", which was added to the second paragraph 
of the results, may be added to the Methods section rather than the Results section.  
 
C. According to the new analysis using AJCC stages, expression of syndecan -1 is higher  
in later AJCC stages, whereas in the abstract it is stated that loss of syndecan -1 is 
associated with CRC development. How do the authors explain this apparent 
discrepancy?  
 
7) OK. Check English  
 
8) The sentence "Our results suggest that loss of … CRC pro gression" still needs further 
elaboration. The results might suggest that syndecan -1 plays a role in early stages of CRC 
development rather than in later stages, but from the analyses in the manuscript it cannot 
be concluded that syndecan -1 is not (functio nally) involved in CRC progression  
 
9) OK. Check English  
 
10) OK. Check English  
 
11) OK. 
 
12) OK. Check English  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additiona l statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
 
 
 
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publ ication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I  declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my  report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access C reative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Prognostic and clinical significance of syndecan -1 in colorectal cancer: a meta -analysis  
 
Version: 1 Date: 18 Sep 2015  
 
Reviewer: Jeroen Goos  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Overall, the added revisions should be checked for correct use of the English language. Please 
address the following remaining issues regarding the (replies to the) comments that were given 
earlier.  
 
1) A. Check  English.  
 
B. There seems to be some discrepancy between the columns "Follow up" and "Clinical 
parameters assessment (number)". That is, for some studies a follow up period is 
mentioned, whereas no "F" is denoted and vice versa (e.g. for Qi et al there is an "F", but 
for follow up there is a "NA").  
 
2) A. Check English.  
 
B. The authors provide a clear and sufficient answer to the comment. Is it mentioned 
somewhere in the manuscript that expression was divided into two groups by the authors?  
 
3) OK. 
 
4) A. C heck English.  
 
B. A paragraph has now been added named "Sensitivity analysis", however, a header 
named "Sensitivity analysis and publication bias" already exists. Please combine these 
paragraphs.  
 
5) OK. Check English.  
 
6) A. Check English.  
 
B. The sentence "In the present … and CRC", which was added to the second paragraph 
of the results, may be added to the Methods section rather than the Results section.  
 
C. According to the new analysis using AJCC stages, expression of syndecan -1 is higher  
in later AJCC stages, whereas in the abstract it is stated that loss of syndecan -1 is 
associated with CRC development. How do the authors explain this apparent 
discrepancy?  
 
7) OK. Check English  
 
8) The sentence "Our results suggest that loss of … CRC pro gression" still needs further 
elaboration. The results might suggest that syndecan -1 plays a role in early stages of CRC 
development rather than in later stages, but from the analyses in the manuscript it cannot 
be concluded that syndecan -1 is not (functio nally) involved in CRC progression  
 
9) OK. Check English  
 
10) OK. Check English  
 
11) OK. 
 
12) OK. Check English  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additiona l statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
 
 
 
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publ ication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I  declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my  report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access C reative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant