Title: Exclusive Enteral Nutrition Remodels the Intestinal Flora in Patients with Active Crohn's
Disease
Version: 2 Date: 26 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
This MS focuses on the changes in the intestinal microbiota and SCFA levels consequent to
EEN in adults with active CD
OVERALL COMMENT
The MS includes only seven subjects and is predominantly descriptive. Although the conclusions
state that these findings illuminate the mechanism of action of EEN, this is not undertaken in
this work
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
1. Each part of the ABSTRACT has awkward sentences that could be enhanced with careful
focused revision
2. The term "CD patients" must be changed to "patients with CD" in the ABSTRACT and
elsewhere in the MS
3. The ASBTRACT could be direct in the results displayed - the current text is somewhat vague
and unclear
4. The  INTRO is very long. I'd recommend substantial shortening of the INTRO (to 1.0 or 1.5
pages only)
5.  Again there are many awkward sentences in the INTRO and through the rest of the MS.
6. When referring directly to an author in the text, please place the relevant reference directly
after the author (e.g.  "Xu Teng and colleagues [6]....."
7. Unclear what is meant by "hormone therapy" (INTRO): antihormone agents or sex hormones
do not have a role in IBD
8. The subject selection focuses on those with known CD who have failed biological therapy
rather than subjects with CD naive to any therapy.  The chosen group typically respond less
well to EEN.
9. The METHODS has extensive details about the subjects. These details should all be included
in the RESULTS section - they are results and not methods
10. When presenting the small group of subjects, consider presenting this data more in the  table
rather than as text in the MS (TABLE 1 could contain more info)
11.  Sentences should only begin with words and not numbers (Three rather than 3)
12. Once introduced with their abbreviation, the abbreviation can be used thereafter (e.g. CD)
13.  Some of the stats methods are in the RESULTS
14.  TABLE 2 could be supplementary rather than in the MS
15.  section 3.6 does not really tell us about the functional impact of the changes in the patterns
of the bacteria
16.  section 3.7 implies that the SCFA levels were assessed in just one patient. This text should
be modified as appropriate
17. The DISCUSSION could also be reduced and focused more.
Title: Exclusive Enteral Nutrition Remodels the Intestinal Flora in Patients with Active Crohn's
Disease
Version: 2 Date: 26 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
This MS focuses on the changes in the intestinal microbiota and SCFA levels consequent to
EEN in adults with active CD
OVERALL COMMENT
The MS includes only seven subjects and is predominantly descriptive. Although the conclusions
state that these findings illuminate the mechanism of action of EEN, this is not undertaken in
this work
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
1. Each part of the ABSTRACT has awkward sentences that could be enhanced with careful
focused revision
2. The term "CD patients" must be changed to "patients with CD" in the ABSTRACT and
elsewhere in the MS
3. The ASBTRACT could be direct in the results displayed - the current text is somewhat vague
and unclear
4. The  INTRO is very long. I'd recommend substantial shortening of the INTRO (to 1.0 or 1.5
pages only)
5.  Again there are many awkward sentences in the INTRO and through the rest of the MS.
6. When referring directly to an author in the text, please place the relevant reference directly
after the author (e.g.  "Xu Teng and colleagues [6]....."
7. Unclear what is meant by "hormone therapy" (INTRO): antihormone agents or sex hormones
do not have a role in IBD
8. The subject selection focuses on those with known CD who have failed biological therapy
rather than subjects with CD naive to any therapy.  The chosen group typically respond less
well to EEN.
9. The METHODS has extensive details about the subjects. These details should all be included
in the RESULTS section - they are results and not methods
10. When presenting the small group of subjects, consider presenting this data more in the  table
rather than as text in the MS (TABLE 1 could contain more info)
11.  Sentences should only begin with words and not numbers (Three rather than 3)
12. Once introduced with their abbreviation, the abbreviation can be used thereafter (e.g. CD)
13.  Some of the stats methods are in the RESULTS
14.  TABLE 2 could be supplementary rather than in the MS
15.  section 3.6 does not really tell us about the functional impact of the changes in the patterns
of the bacteria
16.  section 3.7 implies that the SCFA levels were assessed in just one patient. This text should
be modified as appropriate
17. The DISCUSSION could also be reduced and focused more.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Exclusive Enteral Nutrition Remodels the Intestinal Flora in Patients with Active Crohn's
Disease
Version: 2 Date: 26 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
This MS focuses on the changes in the intestinal microbiota and SCFA levels consequent to
EEN in adults with active CD
OVERALL COMMENT
The MS includes only seven subjects and is predominantly descriptive. Although the conclusions
state that these findings illuminate the mechanism of action of EEN, this is not undertaken in
this work
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
1. Each part of the ABSTRACT has awkward sentences that could be enhanced with careful
focused revision
2. The term "CD patients" must be changed to "patients with CD" in the ABSTRACT and
elsewhere in the MS
3. The ASBTRACT could be direct in the results displayed - the current text is somewhat vague
and unclear
4. The  INTRO is very long. I'd recommend substantial shortening of the INTRO (to 1.0 or 1.5
pages only)
5.  Again there are many awkward sentences in the INTRO and through the rest of the MS.
6. When referring directly to an author in the text, please place the relevant reference directly
after the author (e.g.  "Xu Teng and colleagues [6]....."
7. Unclear what is meant by "hormone therapy" (INTRO): antihormone agents or sex hormones
do not have a role in IBD
8. The subject selection focuses on those with known CD who have failed biological therapy
rather than subjects with CD naive to any therapy.  The chosen group typically respond less
well to EEN.
9. The METHODS has extensive details about the subjects. These details should all be included
in the RESULTS section - they are results and not methods
10. When presenting the small group of subjects, consider presenting this data more in the  table
rather than as text in the MS (TABLE 1 could contain more info)
11.  Sentences should only begin with words and not numbers (Three rather than 3)
12. Once introduced with their abbreviation, the abbreviation can be used thereafter (e.g. CD)
13.  Some of the stats methods are in the RESULTS
14.  TABLE 2 could be supplementary rather than in the MS
15.  section 3.6 does not really tell us about the functional impact of the changes in the patterns
of the bacteria
16.  section 3.7 implies that the SCFA levels were assessed in just one patient. This text should
be modified as appropriate
17. The DISCUSSION could also be reduced and focused more.
assistant