Title: Prevalence of Common Diarrheagenic Enterobacteriaceae in Iran (2000-2023): A
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 28 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
I have read Derakhshan-sefidi et al.'s study entitled "Exploring the Incidence of Bacterial
Gastroenteritis across Iran: A Comprehensive Systematic and Meta-Analysis review". An
interesting topic with a large number of studies at a local scale! Please find below my comments
for revision. These comments aim to improve the study's scientific rigor, transparency, and
comprehensive understanding of the findings:
1. Remove Begg's test from the Abstract. Also, please add heterogeneity (I-squared index)
throughout the manuscript.
2. In the Abstract, revise '10.6% (95% CI, 9.1-12.4%)' to '10.6% (95% CI, 9.1-12.4)'.
3. Why did you start your database search from 2000 instead of from the beginning?
4. It would be better to add Embase to your database.
5. Clarify which authors contributed to article screening and data collection.
6. It is important to explain your eligibility criteria in more detail, e.g., type of studies, their
purpose and outcomes assessed, etc.
7. Mention the version of the CMA software.
8. In the Results, please revise 'A total of 724 articles were initially identified' to n=3701 articles
primarily identified.
9. Elaborate on the strengths and limitations of your study in the Discussion.
Title: Prevalence of Common Diarrheagenic Enterobacteriaceae in Iran (2000-2023): A
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 28 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
I have read Derakhshan-sefidi et al.'s study entitled "Exploring the Incidence of Bacterial
Gastroenteritis across Iran: A Comprehensive Systematic and Meta-Analysis review". An
interesting topic with a large number of studies at a local scale! Please find below my comments
for revision. These comments aim to improve the study's scientific rigor, transparency, and
comprehensive understanding of the findings:
1. Remove Begg's test from the Abstract. Also, please add heterogeneity (I-squared index)
throughout the manuscript.
2. In the Abstract, revise '10.6% (95% CI, 9.1-12.4%)' to '10.6% (95% CI, 9.1-12.4)'.
3. Why did you start your database search from 2000 instead of from the beginning?
4. It would be better to add Embase to your database.
5. Clarify which authors contributed to article screening and data collection.
6. It is important to explain your eligibility criteria in more detail, e.g., type of studies, their
purpose and outcomes assessed, etc.
7. Mention the version of the CMA software.
8. In the Results, please revise 'A total of 724 articles were initially identified' to n=3701 articles
primarily identified.
9. Elaborate on the strengths and limitations of your study in the Discussion.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Prevalence of Common Diarrheagenic Enterobacteriaceae in Iran (2000-2023): A
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 28 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
I have read Derakhshan-sefidi et al.'s study entitled "Exploring the Incidence of Bacterial
Gastroenteritis across Iran: A Comprehensive Systematic and Meta-Analysis review". An
interesting topic with a large number of studies at a local scale! Please find below my comments
for revision. These comments aim to improve the study's scientific rigor, transparency, and
comprehensive understanding of the findings:
1. Remove Begg's test from the Abstract. Also, please add heterogeneity (I-squared index)
throughout the manuscript.
2. In the Abstract, revise '10.6% (95% CI, 9.1-12.4%)' to '10.6% (95% CI, 9.1-12.4)'.
3. Why did you start your database search from 2000 instead of from the beginning?
4. It would be better to add Embase to your database.
5. Clarify which authors contributed to article screening and data collection.
6. It is important to explain your eligibility criteria in more detail, e.g., type of studies, their
purpose and outcomes assessed, etc.
7. Mention the version of the CMA software.
8. In the Results, please revise 'A total of 724 articles were initially identified' to n=3701 articles
primarily identified.
9. Elaborate on the strengths and limitations of your study in the Discussion.
assistant