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 language writing was revised and many of typographical and punctuation mistake was corrected.
All relevant articles are retrieved.
Discussion part was rewrote and completed.
clear and unambiguous
research question needs to be defineds
Search strategy is proper
1. There is no such database called Willy database. Could you please further clarify this?
2. Present the IC/EC in a tabular format
3. There is no table for critical appraisal of the selected studies.
4. Was there any timeline criteria to select the studies?
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process 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). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
Revision is necessary to improve English language writing.
The introduction part needs to be rewritten with more relevant articles.
The search strategy must be renewed as this study did not cover all relevant articles on visfatin and periodontitis.
This study did not include any new relevant articles that were published at the end of 2023.
There needs to be more discussion on relevant articles to complete the short discussion part.
The connection between visfatin and periodontitis is a hot topic in this new and hot topic manuscript, but there are some methodological shortcomings that were addressed previously.
There are a lot of grammatical and punctuation mistakes in both the text and the figures. I would recommend the article to be proofread by someone adept in scientific writing. Some parts are very confusing owing to the language used and need to be clarified.
Sufficient background has been provided and the review appears to have been conducted satisfactorily.
No comment.
No comment.
In this article, the authors performed a systematic review to systematically evaluate the association between visfatin level and periodontitis. While the idea is good and the review has been conducted satisfactorily, I have some thoughts on how this manuscript could be improved and made fit for publication.
1) The specific key words and combinations used should be stated clearly.
2) Lines 31-32 state that “After screening, 22 articles comprising 456 patients with periodontitis and 394 healthy individuals were included in the meta-analysis”. Can this line be elaborated?
3) The conclusion of the abstract (lines 35-37) states “This is the first meta-analysis to compare visfatin levels between patients with periodontitis and 36 healthy individuals. Thus, visfatin levels can be considered diagnostic and therapeutic biomarkers for periodontal diseases.” The second part can be phrased better. For example, you could say, “This review found that visfatin levels may be considered……”
4) Line 87-88 needs to be modified. The tense of the text needs to be consistent.
5) The language used in Figure 1 is unclear and needs to be fixed.
clear and professional
Systematic search strategy including focus question, strategy Population , exposure, Search combination, Database search Electronic, journals not included
Assessment of case definition and data synthesis not mentioned
Systematic search strategy including focus question, strategy Population , exposure, Search combination, Database search Electronic, journals not included
Assessment of case definition and data synthesis not mentioned
conclusion linked with the aim of the study
Minor Revision needed
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.