Title: Unraveling the link between Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Perianal Abscess: Insights
from Bidirectional and Multivariable Mendelian Randomization Study
Version: 4 Date: 27 Jun 2025
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The revised manuscript significantly enhances scientific rigor and
clarity. Key methodological improvements include the incorporation of MR-Steiger filtering,
expanded sensitivity analyses, and thorough adjustment for confounders in multivariable
MR. The authors appropriately acknowledge the limited power in reverse MR due to sparse
instruments and distinguish exploratory subgroup findings. Clinical implications are now more
precisely articulated and grounded in current evidence. Overall, the revision addresses prior
concerns effectively, enhances reproducibility, and reinforces the validity of the findings.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The text remains somewhat dense and technical in places (e.g., “pleiotropy-robust analytical
approaches”), and a round of native English editing was recommended. The manuscript is
scientifically sound and appears suitable for acceptance, pending final language polishing to
enhance clarity.
Title: Unraveling the link between Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Perianal Abscess: Insights
from Bidirectional and Multivariable Mendelian Randomization Study
Version: 4 Date: 27 Jun 2025
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The revised manuscript significantly enhances scientific rigor and
clarity. Key methodological improvements include the incorporation of MR-Steiger filtering,
expanded sensitivity analyses, and thorough adjustment for confounders in multivariable
MR. The authors appropriately acknowledge the limited power in reverse MR due to sparse
instruments and distinguish exploratory subgroup findings. Clinical implications are now more
precisely articulated and grounded in current evidence. Overall, the revision addresses prior
concerns effectively, enhances reproducibility, and reinforces the validity of the findings.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The text remains somewhat dense and technical in places (e.g., “pleiotropy-robust analytical
approaches”), and a round of native English editing was recommended. The manuscript is
scientifically sound and appears suitable for acceptance, pending final language polishing to
enhance clarity.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Unraveling the link between Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Perianal Abscess: Insights
from Bidirectional and Multivariable Mendelian Randomization Study
Version: 4 Date: 27 Jun 2025
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The revised manuscript significantly enhances scientific rigor and
clarity. Key methodological improvements include the incorporation of MR-Steiger filtering,
expanded sensitivity analyses, and thorough adjustment for confounders in multivariable
MR. The authors appropriately acknowledge the limited power in reverse MR due to sparse
instruments and distinguish exploratory subgroup findings. Clinical implications are now more
precisely articulated and grounded in current evidence. Overall, the revision addresses prior
concerns effectively, enhances reproducibility, and reinforces the validity of the findings.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The text remains somewhat dense and technical in places (e.g., “pleiotropy-robust analytical
approaches”), and a round of native English editing was recommended. The manuscript is
scientifically sound and appears suitable for acceptance, pending final language polishing to
enhance clarity.
assistant