Association of Glycoprotein IIIa PlA1/A2 Polymorphism with Risk of Stroke: Updated Meta-Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the present manuscript, Coadă and colleagues performed a systematic search and meta-analysis to investigate the association between the PIA2 rs5918(C) polymorphism and stroke. They also looked at haemorrhagic and ischaemic stroke as possible outcome variables. Their analyses and findings are based on 31 manuscripts. It was found that the PIA2 allele was associated with an increased risk of ischaemic stroke, and no association with haemorrhagic stroke was found due to the small number of studies available.

Comments and suggestions:

-          The authors describe the inclusion of 30 studies in line 148 and 31 studies in all other places. Which one is true?

-          The reference to the article "Corral et. al. 1997" is missing from the manuscript. Please add it.

-          The available data come from several populations of origin. Would it be possible to group studies by population origin and examine whether the rs5918 polymorphism is associated with stroke regardless of origin (Caucasian, Asian, etc.)?

-          In the absence of a reference, it cannot be established, but is the source population of the articles "Corral 1997" and "Iniesta 2004" the same?

-          Since the results of several studies from different sources are being compared, is a correction for the p-value not justified?

On the whole the manuscript is well prepared, I suggest just minor changes.

Author Response

Please find our point by point response in the attahced file. Thank you for your valuable time and suggestions!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting article, but some points need to be improved:

- Line 28: "The power of this analysis was low." What do the author mean? remove this form abstract.

- Lines86-89: "Therefore, the aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of existing research to establish both the risk and magnitude of impact on the likelihood of developing a cerebral stroke." likelihood referring to what? revise this part

- Table 1 and results. It is not easy to understand how this paper were selected. Explain this better.

- Lines 206-208: "The underlying pathophysiology of stroke encompasses multiple risk factors, both genetic as well as environmental factors" Improve and discuss more this part. Look at these interesting and related papers: -- doi: 10.3390/neurolint14020032  --  doi: 10.3390/ijms21218118 -- doi: 10.1080/23279095.2023.2204527  -- doi: 10.1186/s12944-024-02

- Lines 27-276: "A relevant limitation of the analyzed studies is the heterogeneity of cases, and most... strong predictors, whether genetic or not, should have a more pronounced association that is independent of other comorbidities." Add a "limitation of the study" section, there.

- Lines 286-288: "No significant association could be found with hemorrhagic stroke, due to the small number of studies analyzing such patients" writing this in the conclusion is wrong. Whose fault is it if they are few? yes, only 3 works are few, at this point I wonder if it is right to consider them in the entire paper or to remove these 3 paper and talk only about ischemic stroke. Revise this part.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please find our point by point response in the attahced file. Thank you for your valuable time and suggestions!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required