Title: Medical radiation exposure in inflammatory bowel disease: an updated meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 25 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
No - there are major issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: - the topic could be interesting, however I think there are many biases
in the paper
- they have done a wide screening of the potential available papers, however data is missing
- they have reported the radiation dose at which patients were exposed. It will be interesting to
know the numbers of CT scans performed, considering that different CT machines could expose
the patient to different radiations
- the authors compared studies published before or after 2012, with the aim to investigate
differences based on different study protocols. But we don't know if in studies published after
2012 are included also older patients. So there is a mix of data, and this will make the analysis
unreliable
- In the discussion the authors stated that "IBD patients are exposed to an environment with
a high tumor incidence". This is an idea from the authors a bit too much "strong"; we know
that exposure to radiations could increase cancer incidence, but eventually the incidence is not
extremely higher compared to other patients/population
- in the discussion section, the author should analyze data and literature, more than put questions
and trying to answer without the support of data
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Try to re-think the paper according to the above indications
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
as stated above
Title: Medical radiation exposure in inflammatory bowel disease: an updated meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 25 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
No - there are major issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: - the topic could be interesting, however I think there are many biases
in the paper
- they have done a wide screening of the potential available papers, however data is missing
- they have reported the radiation dose at which patients were exposed. It will be interesting to
know the numbers of CT scans performed, considering that different CT machines could expose
the patient to different radiations
- the authors compared studies published before or after 2012, with the aim to investigate
differences based on different study protocols. But we don't know if in studies published after
2012 are included also older patients. So there is a mix of data, and this will make the analysis
unreliable
- In the discussion the authors stated that "IBD patients are exposed to an environment with
a high tumor incidence". This is an idea from the authors a bit too much "strong"; we know
that exposure to radiations could increase cancer incidence, but eventually the incidence is not
extremely higher compared to other patients/population
- in the discussion section, the author should analyze data and literature, more than put questions
and trying to answer without the support of data
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Try to re-think the paper according to the above indications
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
as stated above
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Medical radiation exposure in inflammatory bowel disease: an updated meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 25 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
No - there are major issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: - the topic could be interesting, however I think there are many biases
in the paper
- they have done a wide screening of the potential available papers, however data is missing
- they have reported the radiation dose at which patients were exposed. It will be interesting to
know the numbers of CT scans performed, considering that different CT machines could expose
the patient to different radiations
- the authors compared studies published before or after 2012, with the aim to investigate
differences based on different study protocols. But we don't know if in studies published after
2012 are included also older patients. So there is a mix of data, and this will make the analysis
unreliable
- In the discussion the authors stated that "IBD patients are exposed to an environment with
a high tumor incidence". This is an idea from the authors a bit too much "strong"; we know
that exposure to radiations could increase cancer incidence, but eventually the incidence is not
extremely higher compared to other patients/population
- in the discussion section, the author should analyze data and literature, more than put questions
and trying to answer without the support of data
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Try to re-think the paper according to the above indications
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
as stated above
assistant