We read with great interest the recent published study by Ji and colleagues entitled "Efficacy and safety of neostigmine for neuromuscular blockade reversal in patients under general anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis" (1). They demonstrated that neostigmine is effective and safe for neuromuscular blockade reversal in patients under general anesthesia. We appreciate Ji and colleagues for the valuable study. However, after a careful learning of the literature, we would like to pay attention to some important missing aspects in the study.First, sensitivity analysis commonly is performed by removing one study at a time to assess the effect on the pooled results (2). In the results of sensitivity and publication bias analysis section, the authors performed the sensitivity analysis only by removing Xu et al.'s study (3), which reduced the I² statistic from 92% to 86% indicating steady results of the meta-analysis. However, we believe that the interpretation of the results is false. The authors should evaluate the effect on the overall pooled mean difference (MD) not I² after removing Xu et al.'s study.Second, in the study by Yao et al. (4), the dosage in the neostigmine group was 20 μg/kg showed in Table 1. However, after carefully reviewing the Figure 8 in this study, we find that Yao et al.'s study was enrolled in the subgroup of dosage ≥40 μg/kg. Therefore, we believe the data should be further revised to validate the accuracy.In short, Ji et al. revealed a significant issue with regard to the efficacy and safety of neostigmine for neuromuscular blockade reversal in patients under general anesthesia. However, the data should be further revised to validate the conclusions because of the concerns above.
We read the recent published paper in this journal of J Gastrointest Oncol by Chen and colleagues entitled "Improved sensitivity and positive predictive value of contrast-enhanced intraoperative ultrasound in colorectal cancer liver metastasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis" (1). They performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the sensitivity and predictive value of contrast-enhanced intraoperative ultrasound (CE-IOUS) in colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRLM) patients undergoing surgery. We appreciate Chen et al. (1) for the valuable study, however, after a careful learning of the literature, several limitations should be noticed.First, in the overall analyses of CE-IOUS section of the article, the summary receiver operating characteristics curve revealed a higher accuracy with area under the curve (AUC) 0.9753. The authors believed that the closer the AUC is to 1.0, the higher the sensitivity and predictive value of CE-IOUS and the more benefit. However, we believe that the interpretation of the results was false, as the AUC displayed the performance of CE-IOUS in the detection of CRLM not the accuracy, sensitivity, predictive value, and benefit. Furthermore, the same issues exist in the overall analyses of overall analyses of IOUS section of the article.Second, in the statistical analysis section of the article,
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.