Title: The Effectiveness of Continuity of Care in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease:
A Systematic Review
Version: 1 Date: 21 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
ARTICLE DETAILS - Reviewer BMC Gastroenterology
TITLE
Continuity of Care in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease:
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Overall comments: It was a pleasure for me to check this paper. I read through this manuscript
and I think that it is an important area of research and interesting article to review
However, I have some comments and major recommendations , which I hope you will consider.
Title: Continuity of Care in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review
and Meta-Analysis
OR the The effectiveness of continuity…consider revision
Abstract The methodology need to be checked, a systematic review? Meta-analysis?
The aim is not equal for the rest of the manuscript. Please check
In abstract you refer to medication adherence, later you express medication compliance
Background: Description of the rationale is provided in the context of existing knowledge.
there is also a lack of comprehensive evaluation on the effect of continuity of care for IBD
patients. Please, be consistent with the aim and title.
Depending on the aim, the background might need more definitions
Aim In  abstract -Aims and objectives: To investigate thoroughly whether continuity of care
could contribute to IBD patients.
Please consider
Aims OR Objectives
To investigate the effectiveness of continuity of care among IBD patients
Check abstract, aim and elsewhere
In the text
2. The review- consider to delete
Method The design does not refer to any kind om reference to perform the study. Please check.
In 2.3 Search methods PRISMA guidelines
PRISMA refer to: Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review and how studies
were grouped for the syntheses. Please be clear with inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria.
The search strategy is essential in a review, a suggestion is to provide a table to decide if the
search strategy is adequate. Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers and
websites, including any filters and limits used. You put the literature search in the result, this is
methodology to get to the result, please consider correction. The study selection is summarized
in Figure S1.
I  miss a flow chart according to PRISMA guidelines,
2.5 Quality assessment – please refer to the result, not provided in the table
2.6 Dataextraction -miss references
2.7 Synthesis, no adequate references for performing the analysis are provided,
The methodology and result are a mix, need to be corrected
Please be consistent, sometimes researcher, sometimes investigator, you refer also to two
independent reviewers?
There is also some We in the text and all over the article, please check
Result There is a mix according to methodology and result, please consider revision
3.1 is methodology
3.2 Methodological quality assessment of studies included- is methodology
3.3 Main characteristics of the eligible studies – is methodology
Metasyntesis is the method to provide result
From 3.4 Is your result
3.4.1 Primary outcome: Quality of life- no adequate references in the result section, suggest
correction
No correct references in the result, suggest correction, according to reference method, in result
not seem to be correct
At least, 11 articles were covered in your meta-analysis – please express why? In the method
you used 12. In result abstract it says 12, Please check.
3.4.3 Secondary outcome: Number of outpatient clinic visits/patient/year- you write six studies
reported the number of outpatient clinic visits. Not adequate references
Check the result for references according to your articles.
As I can see your references from the analysis is not in the referencelist, only in the table, pleas
check all references.
Discussion The first section discuss methodology. Please check
In the first line. This meta-analysis was conducted to examine the effectiveness of continuity of
care in patients with IBD- the aim is not the same.. please check
Limitations: is adequate
Conclusion:  Importants aspects are considered
Title: The Effectiveness of Continuity of Care in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease:
A Systematic Review
Version: 1 Date: 21 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
ARTICLE DETAILS - Reviewer BMC Gastroenterology
TITLE
Continuity of Care in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease:
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Overall comments: It was a pleasure for me to check this paper. I read through this manuscript
and I think that it is an important area of research and interesting article to review
However, I have some comments and major recommendations , which I hope you will consider.
Title: Continuity of Care in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review
and Meta-Analysis
OR the The effectiveness of continuity…consider revision
Abstract The methodology need to be checked, a systematic review? Meta-analysis?
The aim is not equal for the rest of the manuscript. Please check
In abstract you refer to medication adherence, later you express medication compliance
Background: Description of the rationale is provided in the context of existing knowledge.
there is also a lack of comprehensive evaluation on the effect of continuity of care for IBD
patients. Please, be consistent with the aim and title.
Depending on the aim, the background might need more definitions
Aim In  abstract -Aims and objectives: To investigate thoroughly whether continuity of care
could contribute to IBD patients.
Please consider
Aims OR Objectives
To investigate the effectiveness of continuity of care among IBD patients
Check abstract, aim and elsewhere
In the text
2. The review- consider to delete
Method The design does not refer to any kind om reference to perform the study. Please check.
In 2.3 Search methods PRISMA guidelines
PRISMA refer to: Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review and how studies
were grouped for the syntheses. Please be clear with inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria.
The search strategy is essential in a review, a suggestion is to provide a table to decide if the
search strategy is adequate. Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers and
websites, including any filters and limits used. You put the literature search in the result, this is
methodology to get to the result, please consider correction. The study selection is summarized
in Figure S1.
I  miss a flow chart according to PRISMA guidelines,
2.5 Quality assessment – please refer to the result, not provided in the table
2.6 Dataextraction -miss references
2.7 Synthesis, no adequate references for performing the analysis are provided,
The methodology and result are a mix, need to be corrected
Please be consistent, sometimes researcher, sometimes investigator, you refer also to two
independent reviewers?
There is also some We in the text and all over the article, please check
Result There is a mix according to methodology and result, please consider revision
3.1 is methodology
3.2 Methodological quality assessment of studies included- is methodology
3.3 Main characteristics of the eligible studies – is methodology
Metasyntesis is the method to provide result
From 3.4 Is your result
3.4.1 Primary outcome: Quality of life- no adequate references in the result section, suggest
correction
No correct references in the result, suggest correction, according to reference method, in result
not seem to be correct
At least, 11 articles were covered in your meta-analysis – please express why? In the method
you used 12. In result abstract it says 12, Please check.
3.4.3 Secondary outcome: Number of outpatient clinic visits/patient/year- you write six studies
reported the number of outpatient clinic visits. Not adequate references
Check the result for references according to your articles.
As I can see your references from the analysis is not in the referencelist, only in the table, pleas
check all references.
Discussion The first section discuss methodology. Please check
In the first line. This meta-analysis was conducted to examine the effectiveness of continuity of
care in patients with IBD- the aim is not the same.. please check
Limitations: is adequate
Conclusion:  Importants aspects are considered
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The Effectiveness of Continuity of Care in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease:
A Systematic Review
Version: 1 Date: 21 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
ARTICLE DETAILS - Reviewer BMC Gastroenterology
TITLE
Continuity of Care in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease:
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Overall comments: It was a pleasure for me to check this paper. I read through this manuscript
and I think that it is an important area of research and interesting article to review
However, I have some comments and major recommendations , which I hope you will consider.
Title: Continuity of Care in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review
and Meta-Analysis
OR the The effectiveness of continuity…consider revision
Abstract The methodology need to be checked, a systematic review? Meta-analysis?
The aim is not equal for the rest of the manuscript. Please check
In abstract you refer to medication adherence, later you express medication compliance
Background: Description of the rationale is provided in the context of existing knowledge.
there is also a lack of comprehensive evaluation on the effect of continuity of care for IBD
patients. Please, be consistent with the aim and title.
Depending on the aim, the background might need more definitions
Aim In  abstract -Aims and objectives: To investigate thoroughly whether continuity of care
could contribute to IBD patients.
Please consider
Aims OR Objectives
To investigate the effectiveness of continuity of care among IBD patients
Check abstract, aim and elsewhere
In the text
2. The review- consider to delete
Method The design does not refer to any kind om reference to perform the study. Please check.
In 2.3 Search methods PRISMA guidelines
PRISMA refer to: Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review and how studies
were grouped for the syntheses. Please be clear with inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria.
The search strategy is essential in a review, a suggestion is to provide a table to decide if the
search strategy is adequate. Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers and
websites, including any filters and limits used. You put the literature search in the result, this is
methodology to get to the result, please consider correction. The study selection is summarized
in Figure S1.
I  miss a flow chart according to PRISMA guidelines,
2.5 Quality assessment – please refer to the result, not provided in the table
2.6 Dataextraction -miss references
2.7 Synthesis, no adequate references for performing the analysis are provided,
The methodology and result are a mix, need to be corrected
Please be consistent, sometimes researcher, sometimes investigator, you refer also to two
independent reviewers?
There is also some We in the text and all over the article, please check
Result There is a mix according to methodology and result, please consider revision
3.1 is methodology
3.2 Methodological quality assessment of studies included- is methodology
3.3 Main characteristics of the eligible studies – is methodology
Metasyntesis is the method to provide result
From 3.4 Is your result
3.4.1 Primary outcome: Quality of life- no adequate references in the result section, suggest
correction
No correct references in the result, suggest correction, according to reference method, in result
not seem to be correct
At least, 11 articles were covered in your meta-analysis – please express why? In the method
you used 12. In result abstract it says 12, Please check.
3.4.3 Secondary outcome: Number of outpatient clinic visits/patient/year- you write six studies
reported the number of outpatient clinic visits. Not adequate references
Check the result for references according to your articles.
As I can see your references from the analysis is not in the referencelist, only in the table, pleas
check all references.
Discussion The first section discuss methodology. Please check
In the first line. This meta-analysis was conducted to examine the effectiveness of continuity of
care in patients with IBD- the aim is not the same.. please check
Limitations: is adequate
Conclusion:  Importants aspects are considered
assistant