The Effects of Pro-Inflammatory and Anti-Inflammatory Agents for the Suppression of Intimal Hyperplasia: An Evidence-Based Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript entitled “The effects of different inflammatory agents for the suppression of intimal hyperplasia in cardiovascular diseases: Evidence-based review” primarily aimed to methodically evaluate the recent findings of the different approaches, mainly on the recruitment of chemokines and/or cytokine and its effects in combating the intimal hyperplasia caused by various risk factors. The authors bring an interesting study. However, all the issues that listed below must be revised thoroughly before this manuscript being accepted for publication. 

Specific comments

Title

1. Since this review mainly evaluated the effects of chemokines and/or cytokine in combating the intimal hyperplasia, the authors may consider change the title in order to reflect the main content more precisely.

Abstract

1. It is suggested that more results should be presented in this part, rather than the search process, “Combination of keywords used during the search process…were incorporated in their studies (Line 20-25)”.

Introduction

1. Although this part is well-organized, it is suggested more references should be added to verify some points, for example, “Intimal hyperplasia (IH) is an abnormal cell aggregation that has been observed…of a blood vessel (Line 45-48)”.
2. Since the authors has already confirmed the significant positive effects of chemokines and/or cytokine in combating the intimal hyperplasia in this session, then what is the novelty of this study? Please specify.
3. It is suggested that this part should be further re-written to highlight the novelty of this study.

Methods

1. The Methods section is clear enough to demonstrate the search process of this study.

Results

1. More information should be presented in this part, not just the search results and basic characteristics of the included studies. It is suggested that the authors should subgroup the types of cytokines/chemokines involved, and display more details of the included studies.
2. The header should be placed at the top of the tables, (Line 167&Line 171).

Discussion

1. It is suggested that more comparisons between the included studies and the corresponding internal mechanisms should be presented in this part.

Conclusion

1. Is there any conclusions based on the results of this review? Please specify.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank the Editor for the opportunity to review this review on the effect of different inflammatory agents for the suppression of intimal hyperplasia in cardiovascular disease. The authors provide a concise evidence based review of the existing literature concluding that   use of different agents, particularly the chemokines and/or cytokines promotes significant effects, thus could be considered as an alternative therapeutic option in suppressing intimal hyperplasia. There are several concerns that need to be addressed.

• Title, abstract and objectives present inflammatory chemokines as therapeutic agents for intimal hyperplasia. These will be the targets and drugs inhibiting them have been investigated. Please revise accordingly throughout the text.
• There are numerous typos, grammatical and syntax errors throughout the text. Please proof read.
• Please revise “cardiovascular diseases” to “cardiovascular disease”.
• The introduction is bulky with redundant information and should be thus truncated.
• As far as the methodology is concerned; how were these chemokines selected? Why was the term “in vitro” included in the algorithm?
• Were the PRISMA guidelines followed?
• Why were clinical trials excluded?
• The discussion should be rearranged and focus further on the rationale of the studies.

 

 

Overall this is a commendable effort by the authors to put together the existing literature and provide an uptodate review, however the heterogeneity of the included studies and the fact that the included studies are in vitro limits the significance of the study. The authors have done a good job by providing a cumulative figure of the involved mechanism; yet it would be interesting if they could share specific thoughts for the utilization of the current chemokines as well for possible investigation of others as well.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made a good revision, I am happy with the current version. 

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank the authors for addressing my comments.