Reviewer's report 
 Colectomy rate in steroid-refractory colitis initially responsive to cyclosporin: A long-term retrospective Title: 
cohort study 
 2  17 December 2006 Version: Date: 
 Diarmuid O'Donoghue Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Re Colectomy rate in steroid refractory colitis 
This re-write is easier to read and understand but still needs work. 
In the abstract the very first line should read CsA may avoid colectomy. 
In the results section of the same abstract I would advise use of numbers with percentages in brackets if necessary. …were 47% and 15 % (use numbers) in the AZA – untreated subgroup (p< 0007 @ 7 years). X of the 34 
patients were relapse-free at 1 year but all had relapsed at 7 years. Omit the rest of this sentence as nearly 
significant has no place in an abstract. Likewise you cannot say” improve perhaps” as it is meaningless. 
Some other comments: What does “post-flare surgery mean” line 6 page 3? 
The last 3 lines of the same page are results not methods 
I do not understand page 4 where it seems the indications for iv therapy was different from oral which I 
suspect is not what the authors intended. “Onset of response etc” same page is results 
There is no need for table 4 
First paragraph p 6 needs rewrite. Do not say “almost reached significance” use trend or just give the p value The frequencies of serious etc …. are shown in Table 5(?4). Tremors etc occurred in between 40 and 60% 
of patients 
Opening para in discussion again re-iterates the results unnecessarily and should be incorporated into the discussion in a better manner. I would omit the final sentence of the conclusion as it weakens the point of the paper. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
Reviewer's report 
 Colectomy rate in steroid-refractory colitis initially responsive to cyclosporin: A long-term retrospective Title: 
cohort study 
 2  17 December 2006 Version: Date: 
 Diarmuid O'Donoghue Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Re Colectomy rate in steroid refractory colitis 
This re-write is easier to read and understand but still needs work. 
In the abstract the very first line should read CsA may avoid colectomy. 
In the results section of the same abstract I would advise use of numbers with percentages in brackets if necessary. …were 47% and 15 % (use numbers) in the AZA – untreated subgroup (p< 0007 @ 7 years). X of the 34 
patients were relapse-free at 1 year but all had relapsed at 7 years. Omit the rest of this sentence as nearly 
significant has no place in an abstract. Likewise you cannot say” improve perhaps” as it is meaningless. 
Some other comments: What does “post-flare surgery mean” line 6 page 3? 
The last 3 lines of the same page are results not methods 
I do not understand page 4 where it seems the indications for iv therapy was different from oral which I 
suspect is not what the authors intended. “Onset of response etc” same page is results 
There is no need for table 4 
First paragraph p 6 needs rewrite. Do not say “almost reached significance” use trend or just give the p value The frequencies of serious etc …. are shown in Table 5(?4). Tremors etc occurred in between 40 and 60% 
of patients 
Opening para in discussion again re-iterates the results unnecessarily and should be incorporated into the discussion in a better manner. I would omit the final sentence of the conclusion as it weakens the point of the paper. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Colectomy rate in steroid-refractory colitis initially responsive to cyclosporin: A long-term retrospective Title: 
cohort study 
 2  17 December 2006 Version: Date: 
 Diarmuid O'Donoghue Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Re Colectomy rate in steroid refractory colitis 
This re-write is easier to read and understand but still needs work. 
In the abstract the very first line should read CsA may avoid colectomy. 
In the results section of the same abstract I would advise use of numbers with percentages in brackets if necessary. …were 47% and 15 % (use numbers) in the AZA – untreated subgroup (p< 0007 @ 7 years). X of the 34 
patients were relapse-free at 1 year but all had relapsed at 7 years. Omit the rest of this sentence as nearly 
significant has no place in an abstract. Likewise you cannot say” improve perhaps” as it is meaningless. 
Some other comments: What does “post-flare surgery mean” line 6 page 3? 
The last 3 lines of the same page are results not methods 
I do not understand page 4 where it seems the indications for iv therapy was different from oral which I 
suspect is not what the authors intended. “Onset of response etc” same page is results 
There is no need for table 4 
First paragraph p 6 needs rewrite. Do not say “almost reached significance” use trend or just give the p value The frequencies of serious etc …. are shown in Table 5(?4). Tremors etc occurred in between 40 and 60% 
of patients 
Opening para in discussion again re-iterates the results unnecessarily and should be incorporated into the discussion in a better manner. I would omit the final sentence of the conclusion as it weakens the point of the paper. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
assistant