Ashraf H, Soleimani A, Kazemi saeid A, Sadat Naseri A, Majidi F, Peirovi N, Karbalai Saleh S. Troponin I biomarker as a strong prognostic factor for predicting COVID-19 mortality: A systematic review. World J Meta-Anal 2021; 9(4): 342-352 [DOI: 10.13105/wjma.v9.i4.342]
Reader's ID:
00735414
Submitted on:
September 26, 2021, 08:52
Reader Expertise:
Reader’s expertise on the topic of the manuscript
Conflicts-of-Interest Statement:
Does the reader have a conflict of interest?
Reader Comment Standards for Published Articles:
1 Title
Does the title reflect the main subject/hypothesis of the manuscript?
2 Abstract
Does the abstract summarize and reflect the work described in the manuscript?
3 Key Words
Do the key words reflect the focus of the manuscript?
4 Background
Does the manuscript adequately describe the background, present status and significance of the study?
5 Methods
Does the manuscript describe methods (e.g., experiments, data analysis, surveys, and clinical trials, etc.) in adequate detail?
6 Results
Are the research objectives achieved by the experiments used in this study?
Has the study made meaningful contributions towards research progress in this field?
7 Discussion
Does the manuscript interpret the findings adequately and appropriately, highlighting the key points concisely, clearly and logically?
Are the findings and their applicability/relevance to the literature stated in a clear and definite manner?
Is the Discussion accurate and does it discuss the paper’s scientific significance and/or relevance to clinical practice sufficiently?
8 Illustrations and Tables
Are the figures, diagrams and tables sufficient, good quality and appropriately illustrative of the paper contents?
Do figures require labeling with arrows, asterisks, etc., or better legends?
9 Biostatistics
Does the manuscript meet the requirements of biostatistics?
10 Units
Does the manuscript meet the requirements of use of SI units?
11 References
Does the manuscript appropriately cite the latest, important and authoritative references in the Introduction and Discussion sections?
Does the author self-cite, omit, incorrectly cite and/or over-cite references?
12 Quality of manuscript organization and presentation
Is the manuscript concisely and coherently organized and presented?
Are the style, language and grammar accurate and appropriate?
13 Ethics statements
For all manuscripts involving human studies and/or animal experiments, author(s) must submit the related formal ethics documents that were reviewed and approved by their local ethical review committee. Did the manuscript meet the requirements of ethics?
Scientific Quality:
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:
Language quality (style, grammar, and spelling) should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories.
Reader Comments:
The article is interesting, but there are some ambiguities or mistakes.
In several places, in the abstract and in the presentation of the results of the meta-analysis, it is mentioned that survival is higher in patients with higher troponin I values, although this is not seen from Table 3. "The pooled analysis showed significantly higher concentration of troponin-I in the surviving group compared to non-survived group ". Not presented neither in the tables nor in the conclusion,.
Also, the ref. no. 15. in the table 3 is cited as a study with troponin levels and patients' outcomes. However, it dos present results of any troponin-I study but the description of the PRISMA statement.
Since the article has already been published, the authors can make their corrections now. They may check the entire text once again, including ALL the references. Thereafter, they may issue a separate correction notice electronically linked back to the published version.
Reply from the Editorial Office:
First, thank you very much for your professional comments on the article published in World Journal of Meta-Analysis.
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 Meta-Analysis 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.
Reader's ID:
03259512
Submitted on:
September 20, 2021, 06:31
Reader Expertise:
Reader’s expertise on the topic of the manuscript
Conflicts-of-Interest Statement:
Does the reader have a conflict of interest?
Reader Comment Standards for Published Articles:
1 Title
Does the title reflect the main subject/hypothesis of the manuscript?
2 Abstract
Does the abstract summarize and reflect the work described in the manuscript?
3 Key Words
Do the key words reflect the focus of the manuscript?
4 Background
Does the manuscript adequately describe the background, present status and significance of the study?
5 Methods
Does the manuscript describe methods (e.g., experiments, data analysis, surveys, and clinical trials, etc.) in adequate detail?
6 Results
Are the research objectives achieved by the experiments used in this study?
Has the study made meaningful contributions towards research progress in this field?
7 Discussion
Does the manuscript interpret the findings adequately and appropriately, highlighting the key points concisely, clearly and logically?
Are the findings and their applicability/relevance to the literature stated in a clear and definite manner?
Is the Discussion accurate and does it discuss the paper’s scientific significance and/or relevance to clinical practice sufficiently?
8 Illustrations and Tables
Are the figures, diagrams and tables sufficient, good quality and appropriately illustrative of the paper contents?
Do figures require labeling with arrows, asterisks, etc., or better legends?
9 Biostatistics
Does the manuscript meet the requirements of biostatistics?
10 Units
Does the manuscript meet the requirements of use of SI units?
11 References
Does the manuscript appropriately cite the latest, important and authoritative references in the Introduction and Discussion sections?
Does the author self-cite, omit, incorrectly cite and/or over-cite references?
12 Quality of manuscript organization and presentation
Is the manuscript concisely and coherently organized and presented?
Are the style, language and grammar accurate and appropriate?
13 Ethics statements
For all manuscripts involving human studies and/or animal experiments, author(s) must submit the related formal ethics documents that were reviewed and approved by their local ethical review committee. Did the manuscript meet the requirements of ethics?
Scientific Quality:
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:
Language quality (style, grammar, and spelling) should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories.
Reader Comments:
The study by Ashraf et al (2021) attracted my attention as a new approach to assess the susceptibility to COVID-19 and estimate the worst outcome after this viral infection. The study has got its merit and certainly is of high importance. However, there is a visible (serious) mistake in the Abstract. The study Abstract reports that “… pooled analysis showed significantly higher concentration of this marker (troponin I) in the survived group compared to non-survived group…”. It is wrong. This statement contradicts the study data and the Conclusion. The Conclusion reports that “Raising troponin-I on admission can be linked to the increased risk for in-hospital death, acute respiratory distress syndrome, kidney injury, and intensive care unit admission …… as compared to those with initial normal troponin I concentration”. In simple words, the study found that higher troponin-I is a risk factor for patients with COVID-19. Thus, the abstract Results section delivers the wrong idea.
Another limitation, that I found, is an incomplete Discussion of the observed links between adverse outcome and levels of troponin -I. For instance, the role of SARS-CoV-2-triggered cytokine storm (including levels of TNFalpha etc) were not properly discussed in relation to the mechanisms that may provoke the higher level of troponin-I. The testing of troponin-I in lymph were not indicated, although the higher troponin-I was previously detected in lymph and associated with cardiovascular problems. I also found several mistakes in English grammar and style.
Reply from the Editorial Office:
First, thank you very much for your professional comments on the article published in World Journal of Meta-Analysis.
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 Meta-Analysis 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.