Abstract: It is consensus and a summary of the article. The aim is clear. The methodology was outlined. The results and conclusions align with the aim of the study. Title: It contains big features, sound interesting, and represent the aim of the article. References: They are relevant and current. Correctly cited and no major references were missing.

The use of laparoscopic surgery in gastric cancer is well introduced in its context. The current research is important to precise the right place of laparoscopy in the armature of gastric cancer surgery. The research question was clearly outlined. The comparison between these two surgical approaches was not well known about this topic. The references used were up to date. The originalities of the paper data were clearly mentioned.

The methodology was well described. The methodology of the research was well indicated and the relevant key-words in terms of gastric cancer were used. The included and excluding criteria were mentioned. Retaining only randomized clinical trials has increased the manuscript level of evidence. The primary and secondary outcomes were mentioned. Data extraction, quality assessment, and statistical analysis were explained and the risk of bias was evaluated using the risk of bias graph. These analyses were adopted in the article methodology.

The most important data for analysis were reported. I think that it was more suitable to use only Random defect in this meta-analysis. The figures and tables were mentioned in the main text. It was better to avoid redundancy of their contains in the main text. The Flow chart diagram was concise. The data were valid in the forest plot. They were verified from the included studies. The statistical analysis was controlled using the RevMan data and there were no errors in the values. After referring to similar research, the results of this meta-analysis were not obvious. The statistically significant results were explained. The level of the statistically significant result was defined. Appropriate units and rounding numbers were used. I confirm the clarity of data presentation. These data were confirmed to address the result question and look for the focus of this comparison. The meaningful statistically results were defined.

The discussion section was not initiated with a summary of the main results of the meta-analysis. This study has not suggested relevantly future research. This research has a great impact on the surgical management of the gastric disease. The findings of the forest plots were relevant and the heterogeneity was explained. The conclusions were evidence-based. The references used were relevant and comparable. Some limitations were reported in this study but some additional limitations were needed to mention. These findings were useful and we can build on it for further randomized clinical trials.