Next Article in Journal
NELL-1 Increased the Osteogenic Differentiation and mRNA Expression of Spheroids Composed of Stem Cells
Previous Article in Journal
Fear of Falling, Recurrence of Falls, and Quality of Life in Patients with a Low Energy Fracture—Part II of an Observational Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Medicina
Volume 57
Issue 6
10.3390/medicina57060585
Review Report
medicina-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Systematic Review
Peer-Review Record

Statins in Healthy Adults: A Meta-Analysis

Medicina 2021, 57(6), 585; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57060585
by Lee Sandwith and Patrice Forget *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Medicina 2021, 57(6), 585; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57060585
Submission received: 15 April 2021 / Revised: 28 May 2021 / Accepted: 1 June 2021 / Published: 7 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Cardiology)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article entitled 'Statins in healthy adults. A meta-analysis' recommended a review of the current guidelines of statin to healthy adults by performing meta-analysis.

This research must contribute to enlighten for both previous studies regarding efficacy of statins in CVD and future RCT studies, but the reviewer recommends to revise minor things.

In Page 1 and 2
Full name of "CHD" was written differently in each pages
Please recheck and revise one of things.
(In page 1 : Coronary / In page 2 : Cardio)

In Page 21 Discussion Paragraph 1
The expression like "This study showed no difference in statins efficacy between RCTs which included participants without underlying health conditions" was improper as this study couldn't categorize numerous RCTs in Catergory 1. Above expression sounds like that previous studies could already be fufilled for the proof of the efficacy of statins properly. Please confirm and revise the expression for suggesting the intention more properly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript reviewed the evidence on the efficacy of statins in reducing CVD risk in people with no underlying health conditions and highlighted a significant gap in the literature regarding this topic. All research components are present and clearly stated. The experimental design is appropriate and procedures clear. The results are logically presented and states statistical significance of findings. Statement and conclusion are presented but need minor revision to correlate with data and link with goals

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In the conclusions, it should be mentioned that the indication of statins is carried out when the cardiovascular risk is high as a whole and an evaluation of it has been carried out with Score or other evaluations. They are not indicated, except for familial dyslipidemias with an isolated elevation of LDL-chol. Therefore, the indication of statins to supposedly healthy people should be very low if the recommendations are followed. It must be brought into the discussion.
On the other hand, the evidence for LDL-Col and the association with cardiovascular disease should be discussed more extensively.

Ference BA, Ginsberg HN, Graham I, Ray KK, Packard CJ, Bruckert E, et al. Low-density lipoproteins cause atherosclerotic
cardiovascular disease. 1. Evidence from genetic, epidemiologic, and clinical studies. A consensus statement fromthe European
Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel. Eur Heart J. 2017;38(32):2459–72. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop