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.
After a careful review of the revised version of the manuscript, I confirm that the authors have addressed all of the reviewers' comments. The revision was thorough, and the points raised were appropriately addressed.
Therefore, I consider that this manuscript is ready for publication.
Accept submission
Accept submission
Accept submission
Accept submission
No concern about this revised manuscripts.
No concern about this revised manuscripts..
No concern about this revised manuscripts..
No another comments about this manuscripts.
Thank you for submitting the manuscript. After evaluation, it needs adjustments, as specifically pointed out by reviewer #1. I would like clarification regarding the narrow time frame for the search of articles. Why not include a broader sample effort? The introduction is very general and does not present the state of the art in detail.
The authors do not clearly explain the rationale for comparing remimazolam and propofol. More context is needed on why this comparison is novel and addresses an important knowledge gap.
The authors mention a previous meta-analysis that found no significant difference between the two drugs on the QoR-15 scale based on only two studies. It is questionable whether conducting another meta-analysis is necessary or meaningful given the continued lack of sufficient evidence.
Details are missing on the search strategy used for at least one database, making it difficult to assess the comprehensiveness of the literature search. The Embase database was not searched and should have been included.
The inclusion criteria are poorly defined, e.g. it is unclear if cardiac surgery patients or those receiving nerve blocks were included. This lack of specificity undermines the robustness of the study design.
The authors collected data on both the QoR-15 and QoR-40 scales but analyzed them separately without justification, rather than pooling the data.
Two of the included studies (refs 16 & 17) were published in Chinese and may not be identifiable in the searched databases, raising concerns about the validity of their inclusion.
With only four studies available for the primary QoR-15 meta-analysis, the strength of evidence is low and may not be sufficiently reliable or interesting to readers to warrant publication.
In summary, significant flaws are present in the rationale, methodology and interpretation that cast doubts on the validity and value of this meta-analysis in its current form.
Minor revision requirieds
no comment
no comment
Minor revision requirieds
＃ Review of manuscripts ：Comparison of the recovery quality between remimazolam and propofol after general anesthesia: systematic review and a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
The author described about the efficacy ofcomparison of the recovery quality between remimazolam and propofol after general anesthesia: systematic review and a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
In this manuscripts,authers have shown that the recovery quality
of the remimazolam group after general anaesthesia was more superior. The incidence of
adverse events was low in remimazolam group.
While the results of the authors' study seem interesting, And the paper is well written, so I will only point out a few minor corrections.
Major comments
＃As the authors point out, most of the papers collected in this meta-analysis were results of RCTs in Asian population. I think this is an important limitation.
Are there any data showing differences in intravenous anesthetics by race, not limited to this paper?
If so, please add them to the discussion section.
I think there is no concern about their experimental design.
This study has meaningful validity of the findings.
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.