Title: Impact of exercise on outcomes among Chinese patients with Crohn's disease: A mixed
methods study based on social media and the real world
Version: 2 Date: 29 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for taking my first round of comments, and those of the other peer-reviewers into
consideration. I believe the manuscript is of a much higher quality. I still have some minor
concerns outlined below.
Overall:
There exist minor grammatical and English errors throughout. These should be checked and
corrected before acceptance and publication. E.g.
Line 199 “…whose meanings could not be identified inf the word segmentation were removed
…”
Line 218 “…, selected through convenience and purposive sampling. were selected by
convenience and purpose sampling.”
Line 273 “. We rRetrieved participants' current…”
Line 279 “…was used in this study (https://www.who.int/zh).” # citation not consistent
Line 289 “…through 8 eight subcategories.”
Lay Summary and Key Messages:
IBD is used in place of Chron’s, why? This study is not inclusive of ulcerative colitis, thus IBD
is not the most accurate term for presentation of findings. I think IBD should be changed to
Chron’s in this section
Methods:
Line 172 cross-sectional should be reported against STROBE guidelines
Line 306 Data analysis. I suggest this information would be better presented as three separate
paragraphs directly following the methods of your three different approaches. Or, it needs to
be stepped out in more detail, and in the order of your three approaches. The majority of the
paragraph is toward quantitative analysis or phase 2 and the last two sentences for each part of
phase 1. This split seems disproportional.
Discussion:
Line 435 again you use IBD, but your study deals with CD, so I suggest just sticking to CD.
Line 465 “Our results are consistent with this, therefore, it is recommended to exercise at known
restroom locations, such as home workouts or some form of indoor exercise, such as a gym,
which may be a priority consideration.” # a bit clunky, I suggest rewording, possibly “Our
results are consistent with these findings, therefore we recommend consideration is put towards
exercising at locations where individuals with CD are comfortable with the location and use of
restrooms, for example home workouts or a familiar gym.”
Line 489 “…that individuals with IBD were twice as likely to be out of the labour force as
were controls[67].” Being out of the labour force is not linked to sedentary behaviour, I am
unclear on the connection in this sentence. Are you insinuating that increased PA will reduce
poor mental health and thus keep individuals in the workforce? This is a bit of a reach from your
findings alone. This paragraph needs clarity and consideration to not overstate findings from
cross-sectional data.
Title: Impact of exercise on outcomes among Chinese patients with Crohn's disease: A mixed
methods study based on social media and the real world
Version: 2 Date: 29 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for taking my first round of comments, and those of the other peer-reviewers into
consideration. I believe the manuscript is of a much higher quality. I still have some minor
concerns outlined below.
Overall:
There exist minor grammatical and English errors throughout. These should be checked and
corrected before acceptance and publication. E.g.
Line 199 “…whose meanings could not be identified inf the word segmentation were removed
…”
Line 218 “…, selected through convenience and purposive sampling. were selected by
convenience and purpose sampling.”
Line 273 “. We rRetrieved participants' current…”
Line 279 “…was used in this study (https://www.who.int/zh).” # citation not consistent
Line 289 “…through 8 eight subcategories.”
Lay Summary and Key Messages:
IBD is used in place of Chron’s, why? This study is not inclusive of ulcerative colitis, thus IBD
is not the most accurate term for presentation of findings. I think IBD should be changed to
Chron’s in this section
Methods:
Line 172 cross-sectional should be reported against STROBE guidelines
Line 306 Data analysis. I suggest this information would be better presented as three separate
paragraphs directly following the methods of your three different approaches. Or, it needs to
be stepped out in more detail, and in the order of your three approaches. The majority of the
paragraph is toward quantitative analysis or phase 2 and the last two sentences for each part of
phase 1. This split seems disproportional.
Discussion:
Line 435 again you use IBD, but your study deals with CD, so I suggest just sticking to CD.
Line 465 “Our results are consistent with this, therefore, it is recommended to exercise at known
restroom locations, such as home workouts or some form of indoor exercise, such as a gym,
which may be a priority consideration.” # a bit clunky, I suggest rewording, possibly “Our
results are consistent with these findings, therefore we recommend consideration is put towards
exercising at locations where individuals with CD are comfortable with the location and use of
restrooms, for example home workouts or a familiar gym.”
Line 489 “…that individuals with IBD were twice as likely to be out of the labour force as
were controls[67].” Being out of the labour force is not linked to sedentary behaviour, I am
unclear on the connection in this sentence. Are you insinuating that increased PA will reduce
poor mental health and thus keep individuals in the workforce? This is a bit of a reach from your
findings alone. This paragraph needs clarity and consideration to not overstate findings from
cross-sectional data.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Impact of exercise on outcomes among Chinese patients with Crohn's disease: A mixed
methods study based on social media and the real world
Version: 2 Date: 29 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for taking my first round of comments, and those of the other peer-reviewers into
consideration. I believe the manuscript is of a much higher quality. I still have some minor
concerns outlined below.
Overall:
There exist minor grammatical and English errors throughout. These should be checked and
corrected before acceptance and publication. E.g.
Line 199 “…whose meanings could not be identified inf the word segmentation were removed
…”
Line 218 “…, selected through convenience and purposive sampling. were selected by
convenience and purpose sampling.”
Line 273 “. We rRetrieved participants' current…”
Line 279 “…was used in this study (https://www.who.int/zh).” # citation not consistent
Line 289 “…through 8 eight subcategories.”
Lay Summary and Key Messages:
IBD is used in place of Chron’s, why? This study is not inclusive of ulcerative colitis, thus IBD
is not the most accurate term for presentation of findings. I think IBD should be changed to
Chron’s in this section
Methods:
Line 172 cross-sectional should be reported against STROBE guidelines
Line 306 Data analysis. I suggest this information would be better presented as three separate
paragraphs directly following the methods of your three different approaches. Or, it needs to
be stepped out in more detail, and in the order of your three approaches. The majority of the
paragraph is toward quantitative analysis or phase 2 and the last two sentences for each part of
phase 1. This split seems disproportional.
Discussion:
Line 435 again you use IBD, but your study deals with CD, so I suggest just sticking to CD.
Line 465 “Our results are consistent with this, therefore, it is recommended to exercise at known
restroom locations, such as home workouts or some form of indoor exercise, such as a gym,
which may be a priority consideration.” # a bit clunky, I suggest rewording, possibly “Our
results are consistent with these findings, therefore we recommend consideration is put towards
exercising at locations where individuals with CD are comfortable with the location and use of
restrooms, for example home workouts or a familiar gym.”
Line 489 “…that individuals with IBD were twice as likely to be out of the labour force as
were controls[67].” Being out of the labour force is not linked to sedentary behaviour, I am
unclear on the connection in this sentence. Are you insinuating that increased PA will reduce
poor mental health and thus keep individuals in the workforce? This is a bit of a reach from your
findings alone. This paragraph needs clarity and consideration to not overstate findings from
cross-sectional data.
assistant