Reviewer's report
Title:Association of RUNX 3 Promoter Methylation with Gastric Cancer: a
Pooled Study
Version: 3Date:4 May 2011
Reviewer: Stefania Boccia
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
• English is really poor and needs to be improved by an English-mother tongue
• In the abstract authors state that the ‘trend of OR was…’ but they did not
formally test for a trend in any part of the ms.
• Authors performed many statistical tests to address the publication bias, but
certainly the funnel plot and the meta-trim method are enough. Please remove
the Harbord graph which is superfluous.
• Figure 1 represents the flow-chart of the selection process of articles, but given
the large number of figures/tables, it is suggested to drop.
• All the additional tables are really unnecessary, except the figure 1 that I would
preserve and use as Table 1 (not additionally).
• Subgroup analysis: 9th line from the bottom: ‘The heterogeneity was existed in
the studies’…it is not clear if authors refers to the heterogeneity among the
overall studies selected. Please clarify and refer to a Figure.
• Subgroup analysis: 13th line from the bottom: ‘…which made the OR from
significant (fixed) to no significant..’. Please authors choose a statistical model
based on the heterogeneity then be consistent across the ms, avoiding to use
both methods.
Minor Essential Revisions:
Typing mistakes across the ms
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Association of RUNX 3 Promoter Methylation with Gastric Cancer: a
Pooled Study
Version: 3Date:4 May 2011
Reviewer: Stefania Boccia
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
• English is really poor and needs to be improved by an English-mother tongue
• In the abstract authors state that the ‘trend of OR was…’ but they did not
formally test for a trend in any part of the ms.
• Authors performed many statistical tests to address the publication bias, but
certainly the funnel plot and the meta-trim method are enough. Please remove
the Harbord graph which is superfluous.
• Figure 1 represents the flow-chart of the selection process of articles, but given
the large number of figures/tables, it is suggested to drop.
• All the additional tables are really unnecessary, except the figure 1 that I would
preserve and use as Table 1 (not additionally).
• Subgroup analysis: 9th line from the bottom: ‘The heterogeneity was existed in
the studies’…it is not clear if authors refers to the heterogeneity among the
overall studies selected. Please clarify and refer to a Figure.
• Subgroup analysis: 13th line from the bottom: ‘…which made the OR from
significant (fixed) to no significant..’. Please authors choose a statistical model
based on the heterogeneity then be consistent across the ms, avoiding to use
both methods.
Minor Essential Revisions:
Typing mistakes across the ms
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Association of RUNX 3 Promoter Methylation with Gastric Cancer: a
Pooled Study
Version: 3Date:4 May 2011
Reviewer: Stefania Boccia
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
• English is really poor and needs to be improved by an English-mother tongue
• In the abstract authors state that the ‘trend of OR was…’ but they did not
formally test for a trend in any part of the ms.
• Authors performed many statistical tests to address the publication bias, but
certainly the funnel plot and the meta-trim method are enough. Please remove
the Harbord graph which is superfluous.
• Figure 1 represents the flow-chart of the selection process of articles, but given
the large number of figures/tables, it is suggested to drop.
• All the additional tables are really unnecessary, except the figure 1 that I would
preserve and use as Table 1 (not additionally).
• Subgroup analysis: 9th line from the bottom: ‘The heterogeneity was existed in
the studies’…it is not clear if authors refers to the heterogeneity among the
overall studies selected. Please clarify and refer to a Figure.
• Subgroup analysis: 13th line from the bottom: ‘…which made the OR from
significant (fixed) to no significant..’. Please authors choose a statistical model
based on the heterogeneity then be consistent across the ms, avoiding to use
both methods.
Minor Essential Revisions:
Typing mistakes across the ms
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant