Review Structure

Is the manuscript clearly laid out? It should be check properly whether key elements are addressed appropriately or not? Consider each element in turn:

1. Title: Does the title reflect the main subject/hypothesis of the manuscript? Is the title complete?

2. Abstract: Does the abstract summarize and reflect the work described in the manuscript? 

3. Introduction: Does it accurately depict the author's intended goals and clearly outline the issue being examined? It ought to outline the experiment, any hypotheses; overarching experimental approach, or methodology. Is the manuscript sufficient in detailing the background, current state, and importance of the research? 

4. Material and methods: Does the manuscript provide a sufficient level of detail regarding the methods (e.g., experiments, data analysis, surveys, clinical trials, etc.)? Are the research methods valid and suitable? Is statistical assessment suitable? 

5. Results: Are the research objectives achieved by the experiments used in this study? Does the manuscript meet the requirements of Biostatistics? 

6. Discussion and conclusion: Does the manuscript effectively and appropriately interpret the findings, succinctly, clearly, and logically emphasizing the main points? Are the results and their relevance/applicability to the literature presented in a clear and precise way? Is the dialogue precise and does it adequately address the paper's scientific importance and/or relevance to clinical practice? Does the conclusion clarify how the research has advanced the field of scientific knowledge? 

7. Language: If an article is badly written because of grammatical mistakes, although it might hinder comprehension of science, you are not required to fix the English. You might want to inform the editor about it.