Title: Intestinal fatty acid binding protein is a disease biomarker in paediatric coeliac disease
and Crohn’s disease
Version: 2 Date: 29 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review.  This is an important area oto be examining in the
IBD/ coeliac disease literature.  Unfortunately, there are a number of problems with the paper
as outlined below.
It is noted that this study was completed 8 years ago making it difficult for the authors to address
some of the issues.
The aims/hypothesis(es) are not clear - is the aim to establish whether iFABP are an alternative
to other measures for IBD assessment. And replace antibodies?Regarding the study flow (Figure
1) - it is not clear why there was loss to follow up for some participants and why some samples
are missing.
Throughout the paper - convention to have 'Coeliac' with lower case 'c' and to use 'coeliac disease'
or 'patients with coeliac disease'
Regarding 'patient characteristics' it would be helpful to have a brief summary of the breakdown
of patients - coeliac, controls, IBD
The absence of histological correlates is a major weakness of the study - although patients
seemed compliant, what evidence is there that the mucosa healed?
Table 1 represents a univariate analysis - was there any attempt at mutlivariate analysis? is there
a need to adjust with Bonferroni correction? Statistical opinion might be helpful.  A statistical
opinion might also inform an analysis of the performance of the iFABP compared to available
tests.
The lines and asterixes in the figures are confusing to the eye and not consistent with convention
- these could be revised.
The groups are also confusing - there appear to be 3 groups with coeliac disease - newly
diagnosed, 6 months and 12 months.  Is ‘established’ 6 months or 12 months? This makes the
results section confusing to the reader in cross referencing tables and figures.
Discussion: Whilst there were changes in some biomarkers with treatment, it is not clear whether
this is because of treatment success or other factors (as mentioned earlier regarding histology).
I don't think we can conclude that iFABP helps with diagnosis based on these results.
Title: Intestinal fatty acid binding protein is a disease biomarker in paediatric coeliac disease
and Crohn’s disease
Version: 2 Date: 29 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review.  This is an important area oto be examining in the
IBD/ coeliac disease literature.  Unfortunately, there are a number of problems with the paper
as outlined below.
It is noted that this study was completed 8 years ago making it difficult for the authors to address
some of the issues.
The aims/hypothesis(es) are not clear - is the aim to establish whether iFABP are an alternative
to other measures for IBD assessment. And replace antibodies?Regarding the study flow (Figure
1) - it is not clear why there was loss to follow up for some participants and why some samples
are missing.
Throughout the paper - convention to have 'Coeliac' with lower case 'c' and to use 'coeliac disease'
or 'patients with coeliac disease'
Regarding 'patient characteristics' it would be helpful to have a brief summary of the breakdown
of patients - coeliac, controls, IBD
The absence of histological correlates is a major weakness of the study - although patients
seemed compliant, what evidence is there that the mucosa healed?
Table 1 represents a univariate analysis - was there any attempt at mutlivariate analysis? is there
a need to adjust with Bonferroni correction? Statistical opinion might be helpful.  A statistical
opinion might also inform an analysis of the performance of the iFABP compared to available
tests.
The lines and asterixes in the figures are confusing to the eye and not consistent with convention
- these could be revised.
The groups are also confusing - there appear to be 3 groups with coeliac disease - newly
diagnosed, 6 months and 12 months.  Is ‘established’ 6 months or 12 months? This makes the
results section confusing to the reader in cross referencing tables and figures.
Discussion: Whilst there were changes in some biomarkers with treatment, it is not clear whether
this is because of treatment success or other factors (as mentioned earlier regarding histology).
I don't think we can conclude that iFABP helps with diagnosis based on these results.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Intestinal fatty acid binding protein is a disease biomarker in paediatric coeliac disease
and Crohn’s disease
Version: 2 Date: 29 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review.  This is an important area oto be examining in the
IBD/ coeliac disease literature.  Unfortunately, there are a number of problems with the paper
as outlined below.
It is noted that this study was completed 8 years ago making it difficult for the authors to address
some of the issues.
The aims/hypothesis(es) are not clear - is the aim to establish whether iFABP are an alternative
to other measures for IBD assessment. And replace antibodies?Regarding the study flow (Figure
1) - it is not clear why there was loss to follow up for some participants and why some samples
are missing.
Throughout the paper - convention to have 'Coeliac' with lower case 'c' and to use 'coeliac disease'
or 'patients with coeliac disease'
Regarding 'patient characteristics' it would be helpful to have a brief summary of the breakdown
of patients - coeliac, controls, IBD
The absence of histological correlates is a major weakness of the study - although patients
seemed compliant, what evidence is there that the mucosa healed?
Table 1 represents a univariate analysis - was there any attempt at mutlivariate analysis? is there
a need to adjust with Bonferroni correction? Statistical opinion might be helpful.  A statistical
opinion might also inform an analysis of the performance of the iFABP compared to available
tests.
The lines and asterixes in the figures are confusing to the eye and not consistent with convention
- these could be revised.
The groups are also confusing - there appear to be 3 groups with coeliac disease - newly
diagnosed, 6 months and 12 months.  Is ‘established’ 6 months or 12 months? This makes the
results section confusing to the reader in cross referencing tables and figures.
Discussion: Whilst there were changes in some biomarkers with treatment, it is not clear whether
this is because of treatment success or other factors (as mentioned earlier regarding histology).
I don't think we can conclude that iFABP helps with diagnosis based on these results.
assistant