Title: The prevalence of Barrett 's esophagus in Iranian patients with gastrointestinal symptoms:
a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 04 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
In 2024, a more comprehensive study was published that presents significant advantages and
differences compared to the study under review. It is recommended that this reference be
carefully reviewed and utilized in the article, as no citation to this similar work has been made:
Reference:
Saha B, Vantanasiri K, Mohan BP, Goyal R, Garg N, Gerberi D, Kisiel JB, Singh S, Iyer
PG. Prevalence of Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma With and Without
Gastroesophageal Reflux: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol.
2024 Jul;22(7):1381-1394.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.10.006. Epub 2023 Oct 24. PMID:
37879525; PMCID: PMC11039569.
1. The abstract mentions that seven studies were included, whereas the main text states that eight
studies were incorporated into the meta-analysis. This inconsistency should be corrected to align
with the actual data.
2. References should be accurate and precise. For instance, in the second paragraph of the
introduction, references 2 to 5 are cited, but it is unclear if these four references cover the
entire paragraph. It would be better to specify exactly which statements are sourced from each
reference. All in-text citations should be thoroughly reviewed and corrected as needed.
3. The manuscript should accurately refer to tables, graphs, and appendices. For example, it
is mentioned that the qualitative assessment of articles is provided in the appendix, but the
specific appendix number is not indicated. All appendices must be correctly cited in the text,
and appropriate explanations should be given.
4. The results section is quite incomplete. For instance, no explanation is provided in the text
for section B of Graph 2. Detailed descriptions of each graph and the analyses conducted should
be included to ensure the reader fully understands the findings.
5. The results section lacks any subgroup analyses, such as those based on gender or other factors.
Including subgroup analyses would enhance the understanding of variations and provide more
comprehensive insights into the findings.
Title: The prevalence of Barrett 's esophagus in Iranian patients with gastrointestinal symptoms:
a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 04 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
In 2024, a more comprehensive study was published that presents significant advantages and
differences compared to the study under review. It is recommended that this reference be
carefully reviewed and utilized in the article, as no citation to this similar work has been made:
Reference:
Saha B, Vantanasiri K, Mohan BP, Goyal R, Garg N, Gerberi D, Kisiel JB, Singh S, Iyer
PG. Prevalence of Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma With and Without
Gastroesophageal Reflux: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol.
2024 Jul;22(7):1381-1394.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.10.006. Epub 2023 Oct 24. PMID:
37879525; PMCID: PMC11039569.
1. The abstract mentions that seven studies were included, whereas the main text states that eight
studies were incorporated into the meta-analysis. This inconsistency should be corrected to align
with the actual data.
2. References should be accurate and precise. For instance, in the second paragraph of the
introduction, references 2 to 5 are cited, but it is unclear if these four references cover the
entire paragraph. It would be better to specify exactly which statements are sourced from each
reference. All in-text citations should be thoroughly reviewed and corrected as needed.
3. The manuscript should accurately refer to tables, graphs, and appendices. For example, it
is mentioned that the qualitative assessment of articles is provided in the appendix, but the
specific appendix number is not indicated. All appendices must be correctly cited in the text,
and appropriate explanations should be given.
4. The results section is quite incomplete. For instance, no explanation is provided in the text
for section B of Graph 2. Detailed descriptions of each graph and the analyses conducted should
be included to ensure the reader fully understands the findings.
5. The results section lacks any subgroup analyses, such as those based on gender or other factors.
Including subgroup analyses would enhance the understanding of variations and provide more
comprehensive insights into the findings.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The prevalence of Barrett 's esophagus in Iranian patients with gastrointestinal symptoms:
a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 04 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
In 2024, a more comprehensive study was published that presents significant advantages and
differences compared to the study under review. It is recommended that this reference be
carefully reviewed and utilized in the article, as no citation to this similar work has been made:
Reference:
Saha B, Vantanasiri K, Mohan BP, Goyal R, Garg N, Gerberi D, Kisiel JB, Singh S, Iyer
PG. Prevalence of Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma With and Without
Gastroesophageal Reflux: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol.
2024 Jul;22(7):1381-1394.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.10.006. Epub 2023 Oct 24. PMID:
37879525; PMCID: PMC11039569.
1. The abstract mentions that seven studies were included, whereas the main text states that eight
studies were incorporated into the meta-analysis. This inconsistency should be corrected to align
with the actual data.
2. References should be accurate and precise. For instance, in the second paragraph of the
introduction, references 2 to 5 are cited, but it is unclear if these four references cover the
entire paragraph. It would be better to specify exactly which statements are sourced from each
reference. All in-text citations should be thoroughly reviewed and corrected as needed.
3. The manuscript should accurately refer to tables, graphs, and appendices. For example, it
is mentioned that the qualitative assessment of articles is provided in the appendix, but the
specific appendix number is not indicated. All appendices must be correctly cited in the text,
and appropriate explanations should be given.
4. The results section is quite incomplete. For instance, no explanation is provided in the text
for section B of Graph 2. Detailed descriptions of each graph and the analyses conducted should
be included to ensure the reader fully understands the findings.
5. The results section lacks any subgroup analyses, such as those based on gender or other factors.
Including subgroup analyses would enhance the understanding of variations and provide more
comprehensive insights into the findings.
assistant