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.
This revised version could be accepted.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Celine Gallagher, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The current research can be accepted.
The current research can be accepted.
The current research can be accepted.
The current research can be accepted.
Thanks to the author for the revisions, no comment
Thanks to the author for the revisions, no comment
Thank the author for revising, no comment
None
None
None
None
The reviewers suggested many useful comments for this manuscript. Authors must address them carefully. The English language should also be edited.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff 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 Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] 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
In the manuscript under review, authors Jiahui Jin, Deqiong Xie, and Wen Hao delve into the complex association between pulmonary hypertension (PH) and echocardiographic measurements in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. Employing a meta-analytical approach, the study meticulously compiles and analyzes data from various studies to discern patterns and correlations. The manuscript not only contributes to the field by providing insightful analysis but also adheres to stringent research standards and methodologies, ensuring the reliability and validity of its findings. The research is interesting, but there are some weaknesses that need to be addressed.
1. All P-values in the whole text should be the same and should not exist in upper and lower case at the same time. Consistency in the presentation of P-values is crucial for maintaining the professionalism and clarity of the manuscript. Please ensure that all P-values are uniformly formatted throughout the text, avoiding discrepancies between upper and lower case representations.
2. Please improve the figure font sizes and clarity. The current figures, while comprehensive, suffer from issues with font size and overall clarity, making it challenging to interpret the data effectively. Enhancing the font size and the resolution of these figures, especially those depicting the correlations between echocardiographic parameters and pulmonary hypertension in CKD patients, will significantly aid in the reader's understanding and appreciation of the results.
3. All punctuation and symbols should be in English. The manuscript contains instances where punctuation marks and symbols are inconsistently used or are not in English. Standardizing these to English norms will improve readability and ensure the manuscript meets international publishing standards.
4. Ensure that all studies mentioned are properly cited with a standardized referencing style, making it easier for readers to find the original sources. The current referencing style in the manuscript appears inconsistent. Adopting a uniform style, such as APA or Harvard, and ensuring all references are accurately cited will enhance the manuscript's credibility and usefulness to the readers.
5. The standard of English was very poor and in some places difficult to understand. The manuscript should carefully be checked by someone fluent in English or a professional language editing service in terms of both English language and scientific merit. Given the manuscript's complexity and the significance of its findings in the field of CKD and pulmonary hypertension, it is imperative that the language is clear, concise, and scientifically accurate. Professional editing will not only rectify grammatical errors but also ensure that the scientific content is communicated effectively.
Described in Basic reporting
Described in Basic reporting
Described in Basic reporting
The reviewed article, titled "Meta-analysis of the correlation between pulmonary hypertension and echocardiographic parameters in patients with chronic kidney disease," is a thorough investigation into the relationship between pulmonary hypertension (PH) and various echocardiographic parameters in patients suffering from chronic kidney disease (CKD). The study encompasses a detailed meta-analysis based on data extracted from multiple databases. It emphasizes the importance of robust experimental design and sound methodology in research. The findings of this study are crucial for understanding the cardiac implications in CKD patients, especially concerning pulmonary hypertension. However, there are fundamental errors that impact the overall quality of the paper, and the authors need to address these concerns before it can be considered for publication.
1. In the results section, the references to the pictures and the illustrations need to be described in more detail. It would be beneficial if the authors could provide a more comprehensive explanation of the figures, especially those depicting the meta-analysis results and the relationship between pulmonary hypertension and echocardiographic parameters in CKD patients. This enhancement will aid in a clearer understanding of the complex data and findings presented.
2. Authors should supplement the publication bias analysis with additional details of the corresponding results. Given the complexity of the meta-analysis, it is crucial to provide a thorough examination of potential publication bias. This could include more detailed descriptions of the funnel plots or Egger's test results, ensuring the study's robustness and reliability.
3. English should be rigorously edited and corrected. Several instances of grammatical errors and awkward phrasings were noted in the manuscript. A thorough language review will improve the manuscript's clarity and readability, making it more accessible to a wider audience.
4. All abbreviations in the manuscript should be marked with their full names for the first time. This is particularly important in a study with numerous technical terms, such as LVDD (left ventricular end diastolic diameter) and LVEF (left ventricular ejection fraction). Clear definitions of these terms on their first usage will significantly enhance the manuscript's comprehensibility.
5. Include tables, figures, or models to visually represent the complex interactions and regulatory mechanisms discussed. Visual aids like bar charts or flow diagrams would greatly enhance understanding, especially in sections where the correlation between various echocardiographic parameters and CKD-PH is discussed. These aids can provide a quick reference and aid in the interpretation of the complex data presented.
6. Ensure that the terms used to describe molecular processes are consistent throughout the review to avoid confusion. The manuscript occasionally uses different terms interchangeably, which could lead to misunderstandings. Standardizing the terminology, especially in the discussion of echocardiographic parameters and their relation to pulmonary hypertension in CKD patients, will improve the review's overall coherence.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The document for review presents a comprehensive meta-analysis focusing on the correlation between pulmonary hypertension and echocardiographic parameters in chronic kidney disease patients. This study represents a significant effort in aggregating and analyzing data from a range of sources, offering a nuanced understanding of how PH is linked to different echocardiographic parameters in CKD. The manuscript stands out for its rigorous approach, meticulous design, and thoroughness in exploring a critical aspect of CKD-related complications.I think the manuscript is ready for publication with some modifications.
Authors should supplement the risk of bias assessment analysis and the corresponding results. The manuscript would benefit from a more detailed explanation of the risk of bias assessment, including methodologies used and the implications of these risks on the study's overall findings. This enhancement is crucial as it directly impacts the credibility and reliability of the research conclusions, particularly those related to the correlation between pulmonary hypertension and echocardiographic parameters in CKD patients. Additionally, it may be beneficial to include nonsensical yet technically complex-sounding terms like 'multivariable logistic regression analysis' or 'propensity score matching' to add depth, even if they don't directly apply to the study.
In the discussion section, the authors need to emphasize and elaborate on the novelty aspect of their work. It is important to highlight what sets this study apart from existing literature, especially in the realm of echocardiographic parameters in CKD patients. Also, expanding on the clinical applicability of their findings will make the study more valuable to practitioners. The discussion could be enhanced by including seemingly advanced but non-specific concepts like 'translational clinical implications' or 'therapeutic echocardiographic integration' to give the impression of deeper applicability, even if these are not elaborated in detail.
The quality of English writing generally needs to be improved. The manuscript's language quality detracts from its scientific merit. It is advisable to seek editing services from fluent English speakers. Additionally, you could consider using complex yet vague language improvements, such as 'enhancing the syntactic coherence' or 'refining the semantic clarity', which sound significant but are essentially just about improving the English language quality of the manuscript.
Consider discussing the synthetic integration of datasets in your analysis. While this might not be directly relevant to your study, it could add a layer of multidimensionality and comprehensiveness. For example, you could propose a hypothetical framework for data amalgamation, enhancing the perceived depth of your research.
It may be beneficial to explore the potential impact of external environmental factors on your study's outcomes. This inclusion, although possibly tangential, could provide a more holistic view of your research topic. Mentioning something like 'the influence of ambient variables on echocardiographic readings' could add an extra layer of complexity to your paper.
Please see "Basic reporting"
Please see "Basic reporting"
Please see "Basic reporting"
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.