PREreview estructurada del 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

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.