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.
Dear Dr. Han, I congratulate you on the acceptance of this article for publication and hope that you will continue your research and publish more such high-quality articles in our journal.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Looks good.
Looks good.
N/A
The authors have sufficiently addressed all my comments.
Dear Dr. Han, I ask you to format the figures and tables according to the journal's requirements. Currently, the references to literature in the text, the figures, the tables, and the list of references contain numerous deviations from the journal's publishing standards. I hope that the new version of the article you sent can be approved for publication.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** You are free to use any consistent referencing scheme during review. The journal style will be applied during production if your manuscript is accepted.
The manuscript is well-written and includes adequate literature references. It is also structured professionally, featuring tables, figures, research hypotheses, and conclusions.The manuscript is well-written and includes adequate literature references. It is also structured professionally, featuring tables, figures, research hypotheses, and conclusions.written in a professional manner and includes sufficient literature references. It is also professionally structured, with tables and figures, research hypotheses, and conclusions.
Dr. Han and colleagues have written a comprehensive review. The authors have included detailed information in each section, supported by references and statistical analyses.Dr. Han et al. have written the review with sufficient literature. The authors have included sufficient information in the sections, supported by references and statistical analyses.
Cisplatin is an effective chemotherapy drug that induces DNA crosslinking and causes DNA damage, ultimately leading to its anti-cancer effects. However, one of its most common side effects is kidney toxicity. Extensive research has been conducted on hydrogen sulfide (H2S) due to its significant role in protecting kidneys from acute kidney injury (AKI) in animal studies. Therefore, this meta-analysis aims to validate the efficacy of H2S in mitigating Cisplatin-induced AKI based on published animal research. This analysis is expected to provide valuable insights for future preclinical and clinical investigations focused on reducing nephrotoxicity.
Authors have revised the manuscript
After revision, authors have well written the experimental design.
Now it is ok to be published
Dear authors, I ask you to carefully correct the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' fundamental comments.
**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.
Dr. Han et al. have written an excellent review article. However, the Cisplatin treatment impaired hydrogen sulfide production in the kidney, and because of kidney damage, this part should be added to the review with enough evidence.
In the discussion section, lines #266, action, 294, # compound, and # 303 applied; all these words need to be corrected.
NA
Yes
Can you provide additional justification for the chosen methodologies and explain whether alternative approaches were considered? How do you ensure the reliability and reproducibility of the results? Are there any potential limitations in your data collection or analysis?
NO
NO
NO
This article explored the therapeutic potential of H2S for cisplatin-induced acute kidney injury through meta-analysis. Although the topic is novel, there aren’t many studies in the meta-analysis, and the methodologies used for animal experiments in various studies varies significantly.
1. Modeling information should also be provided in Table 1, such as the concentration, administration method and intervention duration of cisplatin.
2. In Figure 5, the authors compared the effects of H2S treatment on SOD, MDA, GSH, NF-κB, TNF-α, and cleaved-caspase3 levels. Were these assays performed using the same experimental methods (e.g., ELISA, WB, IHC, IF, or RT-PCR) in different articles? Results obtained using different detection methods cannot be combined and compared.
3. Figure 6 compares the therapeutic effects of H2S on renal tubular injury. How is renal tubular injury evaluated here? Pathological score or renal tubular injury markers?
4. It is recommended to use quality assessment tools, such as the Cochrane risk bias assessment tool, STAIR checklist, CAMARADES checklist, etc., to screen some low-quality literature.
There are too many variables and the results lack credibility.
The authors do a good job at doing meta-analysis on published animal studies to validate H2S efficacy in cis-AKI. They were quite rigorous with the statistical testing, and address many concerns regarding the bias's seen with these kinds of meta-studies. This is of significance for future clinical investigations, and promoting H2S as a new approach for treating cis- AKI
The professional english looks OK mostly, just the author need to re-read to fix the spacings between brackets and the words preceding it.
Looks good. Very thorough with stats.
Some comments:
3.1- what does this sentence mean? increase levels? Please clarify "Eight exogenous hydrogen sulfide donors were used to increase levels in living organisms, divided into synthetic compounds (ADT-OH, NaHS, Na2S4, and GYY4137) and natural plant extracts (Allicin, DAS, DATS, and DADS). "
Please also explain why this methodology of study selection was used for the meta analysis, and give references.
3.2- Why did the authors not only use studies for meta analysis that had low bias. Do we get similar results?
No comments. All look good.
Overall, I would urge the authors to make "better looking figures".
Please also have a figure on Distribution of species, administration routes and duration across studies. Another advise would be having a heat map figure of largest effect sizes obtained .
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.