Structured PREreview of Clinical outcomes of Lassa fever in West Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?: Yes; It outlined the objective of the research clearly.
Are the methods well-suited for this research?: Somewhat appropriate; The method is somewhat appropriate because there is need for more clarity on the studies used for exclusion/inclusion criteria. There's need to review the duration of search (2004 to 2024) and the duration reported (2014 to 2024) in inclusion/exclusion criteria. More, the strategy for analyzing publication bias seem insufficient. For instance, consider Egger's test and Funnel plot. Also, there's need to clarify the risk of bias checklist used against the inclusion criteria.
Are the conclusions supported by the data?: Highly supported
Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?: Highly appropriate and clear; However, there's need to simplify the content for easy comprehension.
How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?: Very clearly
Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?: Highly likely
Would it benefit from language editing?: No
Would you recommend this preprint to others?: Yes, but it needs to be improved
Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?: Yes, after minor changes; The corrections should be implemented.

Competing interests