Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03397-3 (2024)

Title: Efficacy and safety of Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic
cholangial drainage in the treatment of advanced hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review
and meta-analysis
Version: 8 Date: 24 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
Although the authors have conducted a meaningful study, some areas need optimization before
publication, as detailed below:
1.Abbreviations in the abstract, such as ENBD, PTCD, HCCA, NOS, TBIL, should be written
in full the first time they appear. Please revise all abbreviations in the abstract.
2.The term “Rstudio” in line 34 is inappropriate. Rstudio is not software but a platform based
on R software; what we actually use is R software. Additionally, the authors need to mention
the primary and secondary endpoints in the Methods section.
3.According to the Results section, the authors seem to treat the success rates of the two
surgeries as primary endpoints and others as secondary endpoints, but these should be clearly
distinguished in the methodology section. However, the authors have not done so. Additionally,
please pay attention to formatting details, especially the spacing in “P<0.05”, and revise
according to the journal’s requirements. Similarly, please revise similar formatting issues
throughout the manuscript.
4.The sentence “There are pros and cons.” in the abstract's conclusion seems unnecessary.
5.In the introduction, line 81, “easy to occur skin drainage tube,” please remove “skin.”
6.In the Methods section, lines 105-107, “We conduct the literature search through four universal
used PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Wanfang, and China National Knowledge
Infrastructure (CNKI).” Is this “four universal” correct?
7.Detailed search strategies should be provided in the supplementary materials in document
format. In section 2.1, there is no mention of subject terms. Data retrieval strategies are crucial
for meta-analysis results, so please strictly follow the writing norms of meta-analysis, including
detailing the retrieval format.
8.In section 2.2, when setting inclusion and exclusion criteria for data, do the authors not need
to consider the primary and secondary endpoints of the meta-analysis? If a study compares the
two methods described by the authors but the reported endpoints are not what the authors focus
on, such as surgery success rate, how should the authors handle such literature?
9.In line 124, leaving similar prompts is unnecessary. Similar prompts in other parts of the text
are also unnecessary. Please make revisions.
10.Returning to our comments on the abstract, in section 2.3, the authors need to clearly define
the primary and secondary endpoints of the meta-analysis.
11.The focus on survival in line 130 needs serious consideration. According to the authors'
previous description, the included study population consists of inoperable patients. These two
interventions are palliative treatments aimed at alleviating tumor-related complications rather
than treating the tumor. Therefore, the final survival time depends on the progression of each
patient's tumor and is not directly related to these two procedures. Hence, including survival
time requires careful deliberation.
12.Line 134 contains a methodological error. RStudio does not have any packages; all packages
are R packages, developed based on the R language.
13.The term “Cochran Q test” in line 135 is incorrect; it should be “Cochran’s Q test.”
14.Lines 136-137 do not need to be separated into paragraphs.
15.Overall, the presentation of the results is reasonable, but please pay attention to some writing
details.
16.As mentioned earlier, if the authors include the indicator in section 3.5, they need to conduct a
comprehensive discussion. This indicator is only auxiliary and does not participate in evaluating
the effectiveness or success of the two measures mentioned above.
17.In section 3.6, the authors did not introduce this indicator in the methodology. Strictly
speaking, the meaning of this indicator is similar to survival time. Therefore, including it does
not provide any objective support for evaluating the overall effect of the two methods mentioned
above.
18.The content of the first and second paragraphs of the discussion should have been explained
in the introduction. Is it necessary to have this here? If so, please place it in the later paragraphs
of the discussion, rather than at the beginning.
19.There is no need for subheadings in the discussion section. Please follow the writing format
for discussion in academic papers and revise the format. Generally, the first paragraph of the
discussion summarizes the current study’s results and the significance of the current analysis
results; then comprehensively discuss the results and issues in our analysis combined with the
evidence from other current studies, usually in 2-3 paragraphs; then explain the advantages and
limitations (necessary), and the potential for future research improvements and expansions (not
always necessary). Please organize your writing logic and thoughts and rewrite the discussion
section.
20.The phrase “There are pros and cons.” should not appear in the conclusion.