Efficacy and Safety of Anti-HER2 Targeted Therapy for Metastatic HR-Positive and HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comments
- In the manuscript "Efficacy and safety of anti-HER2 targeted therapy for metastatic 2 HR-positive and HER2-positive breast cancer: A Bayesian Net- 3 work Meta-Analysis", the author provided concise information about the safety and efficacy of anti-HER2 therapies, which is helpful for decision-makers.
- However, given that authors published other related studies (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6362967/, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8416996/) that used the same resources, the same procedures, and produced comparable results, so that the manuscript's novelty is called into question. would be better if the author explained how the main objective of this research differs from its predecessors' similar studies.
- The abstract, methods, findings, and discussions are all clearly stated.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscript the authors performed meta-analysis of available to date HR+/HER2+ metastatic breast cancer combined treatment strategies. The presented review covers a wide range of drugs and ongoing research in the world on this topic. The authors carried out an impressive work, analyzing huge arrays of data. However, some minor concerns shown below should be addressed to the authors before publication.
References: do not meet the the journal's “Instructions for Authors”. Refs ##25-49 appear in the text before refs##13-24.
Supplementary materials: are partially in Chinese.
Lines 585-587: "Acknowledgments: In this section, you can acknowledge any support given which is not covered by the author contribution or funding sections. This may include administrative and technical support, or donations in kind (e.g., materials used for experiments)."
The authors didn't fill this section and left the instructions instead of appropriate content.
And finally, authors need to check the manuscript as there is negligence in manuscript preparation. The manuscript is full of abbreviations (not all of them are explained within the text) but lacks an abbreviations list that complicates the perception of the material.
English is almost fine, just minor issues need to be edited.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article, "Efficacy and safety of anti-HER2 targeted therapy for metastatic HR-positive and HER2-positive breast cancer: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis" by Xian-meng Wu et al., is informative, but there are some issues that need to be addressed.
1. The use of SUCRA is an appropriate method for ranking the interventions. However, authors must include forest plots or other visual aids to support the findings.
2. Authors must include the limitations of the study, such as the potential for bias in the included studies.
3. Can authors explain the significance of Bayesian Network Meta-analysis method and why it was chosen for this study?
4. How might the results of this study impact clinical decision-making for patients with HR+/HER2+MBC?
5. Were there any notable differences in the efficacy or safety of the different anti-HER2 combination regimens based on treatment line (first-line, second-line, etc.)?
6. Were there any unexpected or surprising findings from the meta-analysis that were not predicted by previous research or clinical experience?
7. How might the findings of this study inform future research on the treatment of HR+/HER2+MBC?
8. Were there any limitations to the study design or methodology that could have impacted the validity of the results?
9. What are the implications of this study for clinicians, patients, and healthcare systems?
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept in present form
Minor editing of English language required
