All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you for carefully addressing the issues raised by reviewers. I am happy to recommend acceptance now.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Bob Patton, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
First, my apologies this has taken so long to come back to you. I think a combination of the holiday period and COVID has slowed the works.
As you will see, both reviewers were positive and recognised your manuscript has merit. Both have made suggestions for changes, and reviewer-2 has enclosed an annotated manuscript with further comments. I have indicated this is a 'minor revision' as the changes are largely superficial (repetition of figures, clearer legends needed, English use) which should not present a major problem. Please fully and carefully address all the points raised by both reviewers.
Note that reviewer-2 raises a few points about your conclusions though - these should be carefully addressed in revision.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
The English is clear, concise and easy to read, only need small revisions on:
1. One typing error at lines 18 (chang -> change)
2. One inappropriate use of word in a sentence at line 47 (to therapy -> to prevent/treat)
3. It is always better to explain an abbreviation in the first time it appears in the article, even if the author think the abbreviations is so well known that it is not necessary to explain it. (e.g. NMW at line 223)
Literature references are up-to-date and sufficient.
All figures and tables must be self explanatory, this means all symbols and abbreviations need to be defined either in the table itself or in the notes under the tables, and the title needs to be very clear, and this needs to be repeated separately for each table and figure.
Conclusion is relevant to the title.
Methods of systematic review and network meta analysis have been described with sufficient detail and comprehensive.
No more comment .
no comment.
Congratulations to the authors for this interesting manuscript and might be helpful for preventing CIN strategy for patients undergoing CAG or PCI.
The English is clear, concise and easy to read, will only need minor revisions on:
1. One typing error at lines 18 (chang -> change)
2. One inappropriate use of word in a sentence at line 47 (to therapy -> to prevent/treat)
3. It is always better to explain an abbreviation in the first time it appears in the article, even if the author think the abbreviations is so well known that it is not necessary to explain it. (e.g. NMW at line 223)
All figures and tables must be self explanatory, this means all symbols and abbreviations need to be defined either in the table itself or in the notes under the tables, and the title needs to be very clear, and this needs to be repeated separately for each table and figure.
Dear Editor
thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting innovative article.
recent advances in statistical analysis and especially network meta analysis in the last decade helped in comparing heterogeneous interventions. this relatively new technique aided in answering many interesting issues related to patients health and quality of life.
the problem of CIN and the best treatment approach is on the top list of many radiologist, interventional cardiologist and patients as well.
from scientific point of view, the authors have made a nice job of clarifying the dilemma and possible solutions to it.
however the writing English needs numerous revisions. I would suggest that the authors consult an academic writing processionals to clear some statements. I will upload the original file which contain SOME of the mentioned sentences for your considerations.
some of the figures are unnecessarily duplicated. example. figure 4 is a duplication of figure 3 and 5.
the legends in figure 8 are not clear for comparisons, I might suggest using a colored version to clarify the treatment effects more in the funnel plots.
experimental design was nicely presented, clear and unambiguous aside from minor language grammar issues as previous.
the results need further clarification. the statement at line (127-128) for example is misleading.
i can not agree with some of the recommendations.
example at line 131-134 are not correct as the CI spans unity and hence are not significant.
this conclusion was also mentioned in the published abstract and needs further clarification or rephrasing.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.