Title: Translation and Evaluation of the Simplified Chinese Version of the Rating Form of IBD
Patient Concerns
Version: 2 Date: 18 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
In general, in this article, the authors made  a significant evidence-based  effort  to translate into
Chinese and validate the US-version of the Rating form of IBD patient concerns. We believe
that their venture adds to  existing literature and widens  horizons for research collaboration.
However, through our in-depth reading we came across several shortcomings  that need to be
resolved  in order for the manuscript to be considered for publication.
All our suggestions are summarized below:
1) In the selection criteria, the authors stated that they included patients with DEFINITE IBD.
This is not accurate. Please clarify. Was it histologically confirmed?
2)In the exclusion criteria the authors did not take into consideration co-existent diseases
and neuropsychiatric disorders that can affect the results of the study. Please discuss under
limitations
3) Recall period was set up to 14 days. It is too short to eliminate recall bias. Please justify how
it affects results and discuss under limitations?
4) As a measure of clinical activity the authors used QMS questionnaire which is solely used
in china. Why they did not use activity indices such as partial mayo, harvey-bradshaw? Please
justify. In addition the authors discussed in the section of limitations that they have not included
endoscopic and biochemical parameters. If they had used the abovementioned clinical indices
the abovementioned limitation would have been addressed and the study results would have had
more power.
5) In the translation process, the authors did not include representatives from the target
population. This practically means that FACE VALIDITY AND CROSS-CULTURAL
ADAPTATION WERE NOT CHECKED. Please discuss under limitations
6)When the authors evaluated the structural validity of their chinese version, they found poor
fit of their own data to the examined models. Why they have confined their analysis only to
those two models? What about their own novel model? This is really important for the reader
because it may  disclose diversities of the chinese  population in comparison with non-chinese
populations
7)Since COSMIN guidance for the measurement of the properties of the questionnaire please
add results for
a) content and criterion validity
b)measurement error
c) effect sizes where appropriate
Title: Translation and Evaluation of the Simplified Chinese Version of the Rating Form of IBD
Patient Concerns
Version: 2 Date: 18 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
In general, in this article, the authors made  a significant evidence-based  effort  to translate into
Chinese and validate the US-version of the Rating form of IBD patient concerns. We believe
that their venture adds to  existing literature and widens  horizons for research collaboration.
However, through our in-depth reading we came across several shortcomings  that need to be
resolved  in order for the manuscript to be considered for publication.
All our suggestions are summarized below:
1) In the selection criteria, the authors stated that they included patients with DEFINITE IBD.
This is not accurate. Please clarify. Was it histologically confirmed?
2)In the exclusion criteria the authors did not take into consideration co-existent diseases
and neuropsychiatric disorders that can affect the results of the study. Please discuss under
limitations
3) Recall period was set up to 14 days. It is too short to eliminate recall bias. Please justify how
it affects results and discuss under limitations?
4) As a measure of clinical activity the authors used QMS questionnaire which is solely used
in china. Why they did not use activity indices such as partial mayo, harvey-bradshaw? Please
justify. In addition the authors discussed in the section of limitations that they have not included
endoscopic and biochemical parameters. If they had used the abovementioned clinical indices
the abovementioned limitation would have been addressed and the study results would have had
more power.
5) In the translation process, the authors did not include representatives from the target
population. This practically means that FACE VALIDITY AND CROSS-CULTURAL
ADAPTATION WERE NOT CHECKED. Please discuss under limitations
6)When the authors evaluated the structural validity of their chinese version, they found poor
fit of their own data to the examined models. Why they have confined their analysis only to
those two models? What about their own novel model? This is really important for the reader
because it may  disclose diversities of the chinese  population in comparison with non-chinese
populations
7)Since COSMIN guidance for the measurement of the properties of the questionnaire please
add results for
a) content and criterion validity
b)measurement error
c) effect sizes where appropriate
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Translation and Evaluation of the Simplified Chinese Version of the Rating Form of IBD
Patient Concerns
Version: 2 Date: 18 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
In general, in this article, the authors made  a significant evidence-based  effort  to translate into
Chinese and validate the US-version of the Rating form of IBD patient concerns. We believe
that their venture adds to  existing literature and widens  horizons for research collaboration.
However, through our in-depth reading we came across several shortcomings  that need to be
resolved  in order for the manuscript to be considered for publication.
All our suggestions are summarized below:
1) In the selection criteria, the authors stated that they included patients with DEFINITE IBD.
This is not accurate. Please clarify. Was it histologically confirmed?
2)In the exclusion criteria the authors did not take into consideration co-existent diseases
and neuropsychiatric disorders that can affect the results of the study. Please discuss under
limitations
3) Recall period was set up to 14 days. It is too short to eliminate recall bias. Please justify how
it affects results and discuss under limitations?
4) As a measure of clinical activity the authors used QMS questionnaire which is solely used
in china. Why they did not use activity indices such as partial mayo, harvey-bradshaw? Please
justify. In addition the authors discussed in the section of limitations that they have not included
endoscopic and biochemical parameters. If they had used the abovementioned clinical indices
the abovementioned limitation would have been addressed and the study results would have had
more power.
5) In the translation process, the authors did not include representatives from the target
population. This practically means that FACE VALIDITY AND CROSS-CULTURAL
ADAPTATION WERE NOT CHECKED. Please discuss under limitations
6)When the authors evaluated the structural validity of their chinese version, they found poor
fit of their own data to the examined models. Why they have confined their analysis only to
those two models? What about their own novel model? This is really important for the reader
because it may  disclose diversities of the chinese  population in comparison with non-chinese
populations
7)Since COSMIN guidance for the measurement of the properties of the questionnaire please
add results for
a) content and criterion validity
b)measurement error
c) effect sizes where appropriate
assistant