Title: Return on Investment of Internet Delivered Exposure Therapy for Irritable Bowel
Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Version: 3 Date: 02 May 2021
Reviewer:  Zlatan Mujagic
Reviewer's report:
Overall a well conducted and well analyzed study. The conclusion adds value to the available
literature.
A few remarks / suggestions for revisions:
1) The authors indicate that not all patients completed the treatment and treatment completion
was not taken into account in the present study. Why was this point not taken into account as
it could have an effect on the final conclusion? Could the authors provide more information or
consider taking the completion of the study into account in their analysis?
2) The authors indicate that the small number of missing data (maximum of 13.7% at 6 months
FU), probably has no effect on the final conclusion. While this is probably true, depending on
which patients had missing data, it may have an effect on the conclusion. As there could be some
unreported bias. The authors could provide some more data on this point by describing whether
the patient group with missing data does or does not differ from the rest of the study population.
3) One minor remark: the abbreviation ICBT-WE spelled out as full term, and throughout the
manuscript is it written as ICBT-we and ICBT-WE.
Title: Return on Investment of Internet Delivered Exposure Therapy for Irritable Bowel
Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Version: 3 Date: 02 May 2021
Reviewer:  Zlatan Mujagic
Reviewer's report:
Overall a well conducted and well analyzed study. The conclusion adds value to the available
literature.
A few remarks / suggestions for revisions:
1) The authors indicate that not all patients completed the treatment and treatment completion
was not taken into account in the present study. Why was this point not taken into account as
it could have an effect on the final conclusion? Could the authors provide more information or
consider taking the completion of the study into account in their analysis?
2) The authors indicate that the small number of missing data (maximum of 13.7% at 6 months
FU), probably has no effect on the final conclusion. While this is probably true, depending on
which patients had missing data, it may have an effect on the conclusion. As there could be some
unreported bias. The authors could provide some more data on this point by describing whether
the patient group with missing data does or does not differ from the rest of the study population.
3) One minor remark: the abbreviation ICBT-WE spelled out as full term, and throughout the
manuscript is it written as ICBT-we and ICBT-WE.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Return on Investment of Internet Delivered Exposure Therapy for Irritable Bowel
Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Version: 3 Date: 02 May 2021
Reviewer:  Zlatan Mujagic
Reviewer's report:
Overall a well conducted and well analyzed study. The conclusion adds value to the available
literature.
A few remarks / suggestions for revisions:
1) The authors indicate that not all patients completed the treatment and treatment completion
was not taken into account in the present study. Why was this point not taken into account as
it could have an effect on the final conclusion? Could the authors provide more information or
consider taking the completion of the study into account in their analysis?
2) The authors indicate that the small number of missing data (maximum of 13.7% at 6 months
FU), probably has no effect on the final conclusion. While this is probably true, depending on
which patients had missing data, it may have an effect on the conclusion. As there could be some
unreported bias. The authors could provide some more data on this point by describing whether
the patient group with missing data does or does not differ from the rest of the study population.
3) One minor remark: the abbreviation ICBT-WE spelled out as full term, and throughout the
manuscript is it written as ICBT-we and ICBT-WE.
assistant