03714260

May 29, 2021, 07:00

Reader’s expertise on the topic of the manuscript

Does the reader have a conflict of interest?

The overall quality of the manuscript, based on the above-listed criteria, should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories

Language quality (style, grammar, and spelling) should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories.

Han et al have carried out a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials studies to review and compare response rates, survival outcomes, and safety of first-line systemic therapies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma [1]. We praise and applaud their imperative research, but several important issues should be noted. First, in the “eligibility criteria” subheading of the paper, the author stated the inclusion and exclusion criteria but these are not based on PICO and PRISMA statement (PRISMA 2009 checklist, item 6) [2-4]. In this section, readers cannot properly understand what intervention (s) have been examined and what the comparison (s) are and what the outcome (s) have been examined. Second, in the “Information sources, search strategy, and study selection” subheading of the paper, the author stated that “Studies were identified by searching the following electronic databases: PubMed, Science Direct, and the Cochrane Database, and etc”. It is very clear that “Science Direct” is not a database, and is a website which provides access to a large bibliographic database of scientific and medical publications of the Dutch publisher Elsevier. The authors of the article did not mention any reason why they did not search important databases such as Scopus, Web of Science and Embase. This issue is also not mentioned in the study limitations section. However, authors in Figure 1 stated that the Embase database is searched, which is not in line with the text. Also, based on the PRISMA statement 2009, items 7 and 8, authors should indicate the databases with dates of coverage, and any limits used in search. There is a possibility of publication bias in this case. In addition, the authors did not give us any information about the “study selection” (PRISMA statement 2009, item 9). The quality assessment stage is also interestingly stated in this section. According to PRISMA, this is a major step and should be taken in a separate section (PRISMA statement 2009, items 12 and 15). Third, in the “Studies included in the analysis” subheading of the paper, the author stated that of 86 articles, 27 met the inclusion criteria. Based on the PRISMA statement, item 17, the reason for exclusion at each stage must be stated. These reasons can be in the text or in the flow chart. In this study, the reasons for exclusions are not mentioned in any section. Forth, in the “Quality assessment” subheading of the paper, the author stated that “study design characteristics are summarized in Supplementary Figure 1”, however, only “Risk of bias across studies” is given in the supplement and the results related to “Risk of bias in individual studies” are not mentioned. In addition, there is no information about the emission bias in this section. (PRISMA statement, items 19 and 22). References 1 Han Y, Zhi W-H, Xu F, Zhang C-B, Huang X-Q, Luo J-F. Selection of first-line systemic therapies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World journal of gastroenterology 2021; 27(19): 2415 2 Arab-Zozani M, Hassanipour S. Following PRISMA in a Systematic Review: Obligation or Authority? Int J Prev Med 2020; 11: 70-70 [PMID: 32742614 DOI: 10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_400_19] 3 Arab-Zozani M, Ghoddoosi-Nejad D, Dehghani M. Tips on Reporting a Systematic Review. Bulletin of emergency and trauma 2018; 6(1): 71-72 [PMID: 29379813 PMCID: PMC5787367 DOI: 10.29252/beat-060111] 4 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine 2009; 151(4): 264-269, w264 [PMID: 19622511 DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135]

First, thank you very much for your professional comments on the article published in World Journal of Gastroenterology. Second, we read your comments with great interest. You are welcome to format your valuable comments into a Letter to the Editor and submit it online to World Journal of Gastroenterology at https://www.f6publishing.com. There are no restrictions on the number of words, figures (color, B/W) or authors for a Letter to the Editor. In addition, the article processing charge will be exempted for this Letter to the Editor. As with all articles published by the Baishideng Publishing Group, the Letter to the Editor will be published online after completing peer review. The guidelines for a Letter to the Editor can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/219. Finally, we look forward to receiving your high-quality Letter to the Editor, which will promote academic communication and lead the development of this discipline.