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.
The quality of this manuscript has improved after revisions.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Stefano Menini, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
The manuscript has been revised according to the comments.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The quality of this manuscript has improved after revisions.
The manuscript requires a number of Major Revisions.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: PeerJ staff have identified that the English language needs to be improved. When you prepare your next revision, please either (i) have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or (ii) contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. PeerJ can provide language editing services - you can contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
1.As shown in Figure 1, the author used the word "other" to provide the reasons for excluding the literature, which is not appropriate. Please provide specific reasons.
2.The color scheme of the images in the manuscript is neither aesthetically pleasing nor conducive to a good reading experience. Please make changes accordingly.
3.I suggest the author make appropriate changes to the introduction as there are a few expressions that may not be idiomatic in English. Additionally, there are some areas where the logic could be improved, although it does not affect the overall comprehension.
4.Conclusion section: L 314 -L 315 is confusing.
5. In Tab 3, not I2, but rather I^2.
This meta-analysis evaluated the on the effectiveness the application of hipkinje system pacing for hipkinje system pacing, and found that HPSP could significantly improve cardiac function, reverse ventricular remodeling and produce stable electrical parameters of pacemakers for PICM patients. This work is well-designed with sufficient clinical value. I have following suggestions:
First, the language should be further revised. Acronyms should be fully spelled when they are first used in abstract and the body text.
Second, some references were too old especially in the introduction part, such as reference 1.
Three, whether the included populations received cardiac resynchronization therapy before received HPSP. Please give a subgroup analysis if possible.
Four, in figure 2, there were 2 “Yang Ye 2021” in the subgroup of follow-up time >6months. Similar problems occurred in Figure 5,6, and 7. Please explain and revise the figures.
the work is well-designed and concucted to the PRISMA guideline and registered in the PROSPERO.
First, whether there was publication bias in this meta-analysis. To better evaluate the findings,please give the funnel plot for the main outcome.
Second, the conclusions " The efficacy of HBP upgrading is not inferior to LBBP, both of them are comparable." seems to lack of evidence. The results didn't give a direct comparisons.
none
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors conducted a meta-analysis of previously published literature to study the effectiveness of hipkinje system pacing therapy in patients with PICM, and finally concluded that HPSP can significantly improve cardiac function, reverse ventricular remodeling, and The electrical parameters of the pacemaker were stable. The results of this paper can provide some guidance for the choice of treatment methods for PICM patients. However, there are still some small problems in the article, I hope the author can explain:
1. When searching literature, the author searched several databases such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Are these databases enough? Are there other databases that can be searched? Does it lead to fewer studies included in the end?
2. What is the reason for the high heterogeneity obtained from Meta analysis? What method did the author use to solve this problem?
3. Which method is used for the sensitivity analysis? It doesn't seem to be clearly stated in the text.
4. Has the paper tested for possible bias such as publication bias?
5. "PICM" in the background should have a full description of the acronym when it appears for the first time.
6. There are some grammatical errors in the full text, please revise.
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.