As a reviewer, you must provide a fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
If the work is not clear because of missing analyses, the reviewer should comment and explain what additional analyses would clarify the work submitted.
Try to address all the following points in your review:
o Originality: Does the work add enough to what is already in the published literature? If so, what does it add? Please cite relevant references to support your comments on originality.
o Importance of the work to general readers: does this work matter to clinicians, researchers, policymakers, educators, or patients? Will it help our readers to make better decisions and, if so, how? Is a general medical journal the right place for it?
o Is the research question clearly defined and appropriately answered?
o The overall design of the study : appropriate and adequate to answer the research question?
o Participants: adequately described, their conditions defined, inclusion and exclusion criteria described? How representative were the authors of patients whom this evidence might affect?
o Methods: adequately described? Is the main outcome measure clear? Is the study fully reported in line with the appropriate reporting statement or checklist (such as CONSORT, PRISMA, and STROBE )?
o Was the study ethical (this may go beyond simply whether the study was approved by an ethics committee)?