Review History

To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.


  • The initial submission of this article was received on August 31st, 2015 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on September 20th, 2015.
  • The first revision was submitted on October 27th, 2015 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on October 29th, 2015.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor


What we meant by "nested power" was to include a comment regarding whether the individual studies included in the analysis themselves had sufficient power to answer the questions posed. You may wish to add a statement to that effect in the galley state but I do not feel strongly about this.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

The report requires close attention to editing by an expert English native speaker. Also the additional analysis breakdown proposed by a reviewer should be performed. Areas where the data is acquired from cohorts without nested power should be stated as such.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The paper is present well with good structure.

Experimental design

Well performed meta-analysis following mostly the protocol of most previous meta-analyses.

Validity of the findings

The findings have very little novelty value but settling the matter of false positive reporting on the polymorphims of TLR4 gene associating with CAD is commendable.

Comments for the author

The meta-analysis by Chen et al. deals with the possible effects of TLR4 gene polymorphism. The main result is, that while few studies published ten years ago indicated that Asp299Gly polymorphism could be associated with the risk of CAD, a meta-analysis of all studies conducted since then shows no significant association. Publishing negative results is commendable although it is has already become evident on a general level that most results of genetic association studies are not replicable.

I have very little to add to this report. It is mostly well written but could use some revision for improving the language.

Please present present currently used rs-number of the Asp299Gly polymorphism in the Title and Abstract.

If possible, some of the result could be presented in supplementary material. For example the part of possible modulating effect of statin treatment could be transferred to supplements as well as the section dealing with “Association between Asp299Gly and the number of stenosed coronary arteries”.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

Meta-analysis is correctly conducted and litterature is consistent. Minor revisions are required :
-Language: grammar and spelling should be revised
-It should better compare : 1-vessel+2-vessel vs. 3-vessel , it may give more significant result than (1-vessel+2-vessel+3-vessel vs. 3-vessel.
-Conclusion about incidence of cardiovascular events according to TLR4 genotype and statin treatment is underpowered because only three studies were included (indicate in discussion)

Experimental design

Meta-analysis correctly conducted

Validity of the findings

Although results are negative, they are valid.

Comments for the author

no comment

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.