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.
According to the reviewer reports, and my own evaluation, this paper can be accept for publication
no comment
no further comment
no further comment
none
no
comments
no
comments
no
comments
no
comments
Please revised as per the comments from the reviewers.
1. Results of the meta analysis do not match with the authors conclusion on the efficacy of curcumin in the management on OSF or OLP.
Lines 294-295: 294 the pooled data of 7 trials showed a slightly lower efficacy of curcumin compared to positive control groups in improving mouth opening:
Line 311: The data at baseline of OLP was comparable between curcumin groups and active control groups
Despite above findings you conclude: Our study also supported the active role of curcumin in improving the clinical symptoms of OPMDs, such as the alleviation of erythema or erosion of OLP and the improvement of mouth opening restriction of OSF,
2, In Table 2, in the last column (main results) no data are given to come to the stated conclusion.
3, It is not clear what you say in lines 337-338 "uncompleted published bias was induced"
4. The results of previous systematic reviews stated in the introduction (lines 120-137) should be moved to the discussion
5. The objective of the study is not clear
6. Lines; 69 and 101. The term "so forth" should not be used in writing .
7. Line 72: the term "betel nut" should not be used in scientific writing . Instead Use "areca nut"
8. Hazarey et al RCT (your ref 37) on OSF is missing in Table 2
9. English grammar need improving. Please get help from an English writer,
It is not clear whether the authors used a random-effect model or a fixed-effect model for this systematic review-meta analysis.
Results do not match with the authors' conclusion.
English needs improvement to suit an international readership.
The article is clear, unambiguous, with English professional used
Origial research and useful for all categories of medical and destist; research question is well defined, relevant, and try to make more clear the efficacy of Curcumin. Very rigorous investigation and meta analysys wery well done. optimum method and well described
This research has a very good impact and the data used are robust, statistically optimum sound and controlled
Conclusions are well stated, linked to the original research question and limited to supporting results
very well done manuscript and very simply to understand also for not special addicts
no comment
no comment
1) Kindly incorporate the pre and post changes in the clinical figure shown with all the respective lesions.
2) Mention the effectiveness of curcumin alone and curcumin with steroids, both topically as well as systemically. Compare and contrast.
3) Stratify the OPMDS and present the table for the same with context to the present topic.
4) Mention different forms of curcumin and its medical application in short.
no comments
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.