Next Article in Journal
Pegfilgrastim in Supportive Care of Hodgkin Lymphoma
Next Article in Special Issue
Adjuvant Radiotherapy in Surgically Treated HPV-Positive Oropharyngeal Carcinoma with Adverse Pathological Features
Previous Article in Journal
Levels of Evidence Supporting United States Guidelines in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Treatment
Previous Article in Special Issue
Transoral Robotic Surgery for Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Tonsil versus Base of Tongue: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 14
Issue 16
10.3390/cancers14164061
Review Report
cancers-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

Human Papillomavirus-Associated Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trial Demographics

Cancers 2022, 14(16), 4061; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14164061
by Tamar M. Gordis, Joshua L. Cagle, Shaun A. Nguyen * and Jason G. Newman
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Eman Toraih
Cancers 2022, 14(16), 4061; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14164061
Submission received: 10 June 2022 / Revised: 2 August 2022 / Accepted: 8 August 2022 / Published: 22 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Epidemiology of HPV-Associated Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

OSCC-related to HPV infection is very significant problem. However, The authors did not write what is new in their study.
Whether the results of their analysis may have any significance in clinical practice
Are there any limitations to this paper?
After the above doubts are corrected, the article may be accepted for publication

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is interesting and rarely thought of, however, I wonder what would be the impact out of answering this question.

Introduction: Suggest clarifying the clinical application of the findings that will come out from this analysis and how this is needed and would have an impact on the study population care.

Methods: It is well described in sufficient details. (1) Recommend quality control assessment to be added and applied. (2) Extra space in line 113. (3) Describe the formula used if raw data is not presented as mean and standard deviation. (4) There is redundancy and unneeded repetition form lines 121 to 130. (5) Meta-regression analysis is recommended.

Results: (1) Fig.1 list databases used in the workflow. (2) Table 2 and 3 identify the number of studies and number of study subjects used for the analysis of each parameter. (3) PICO stated in lines 82-84 does not match the output of one arm meta-analysis. The research question compared between two arms, so where is the arm of national databases. Only present description of one arm which is the clinical trials. Based on the question stated, it is needed to compare e.g sex in clinical trials x national databases, ....etc. (4) Data on heterogeneity was not supplied. (5) Meta-regression is recommended in the results. (6) Trial sequential analysis is also suggested.

Discussion: some sections represent ew values and should be shifted to the results.

Thank you

 

 

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Request the table of input of smoking variable (pack year) used for Table 3.

Back to TopTop