Title: Mobile Health Technologies in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Narrative Review
Version: 1 Date: 11 Jul 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed the requested edits. A few small edits are suggested on this revised
manuscript:
In line 56, “due to abnormal immune response” should be “due to an abnormal immune
response”.
In line 139, “QoL of life” should be “QoL”.
In lines 160 – 161, the authors comment “although it should be noted that research is often easier
to execute when tied to academic centers, given the increased resources and emphasis on clinical
validation.” Many would disagree that research is easy in academics. Further, this statement
suggests that clinical validation is not a focus of research in the private sector. I recommend
removing this statement.
In line 175-176, please provide a reference for the AGA Quality of Care indicator checklist.
In line 182, “useful to assess efficacy” should be “useful to assess the efficacy”.
In line 208-209, the authors only report the outcomes for 2 study arms (TECCU group vs control
group), however the 3 cohorts described are the TECCU group, nurse-assisted telephone care
and standard of care. Which is the control group? Please clarify these findings.
In line 283, “further research into efficacy” should be “further research into the efficacy”.
In line 317, “they found significant interaction” should be “they found a significant interaction”.
Title: Mobile Health Technologies in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Narrative Review
Version: 1 Date: 11 Jul 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed the requested edits. A few small edits are suggested on this revised
manuscript:
In line 56, “due to abnormal immune response” should be “due to an abnormal immune
response”.
In line 139, “QoL of life” should be “QoL”.
In lines 160 – 161, the authors comment “although it should be noted that research is often easier
to execute when tied to academic centers, given the increased resources and emphasis on clinical
validation.” Many would disagree that research is easy in academics. Further, this statement
suggests that clinical validation is not a focus of research in the private sector. I recommend
removing this statement.
In line 175-176, please provide a reference for the AGA Quality of Care indicator checklist.
In line 182, “useful to assess efficacy” should be “useful to assess the efficacy”.
In line 208-209, the authors only report the outcomes for 2 study arms (TECCU group vs control
group), however the 3 cohorts described are the TECCU group, nurse-assisted telephone care
and standard of care. Which is the control group? Please clarify these findings.
In line 283, “further research into efficacy” should be “further research into the efficacy”.
In line 317, “they found significant interaction” should be “they found a significant interaction”.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Mobile Health Technologies in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Narrative Review
Version: 1 Date: 11 Jul 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed the requested edits. A few small edits are suggested on this revised
manuscript:
In line 56, “due to abnormal immune response” should be “due to an abnormal immune
response”.
In line 139, “QoL of life” should be “QoL”.
In lines 160 – 161, the authors comment “although it should be noted that research is often easier
to execute when tied to academic centers, given the increased resources and emphasis on clinical
validation.” Many would disagree that research is easy in academics. Further, this statement
suggests that clinical validation is not a focus of research in the private sector. I recommend
removing this statement.
In line 175-176, please provide a reference for the AGA Quality of Care indicator checklist.
In line 182, “useful to assess efficacy” should be “useful to assess the efficacy”.
In line 208-209, the authors only report the outcomes for 2 study arms (TECCU group vs control
group), however the 3 cohorts described are the TECCU group, nurse-assisted telephone care
and standard of care. Which is the control group? Please clarify these findings.
In line 283, “further research into efficacy” should be “further research into the efficacy”.
In line 317, “they found significant interaction” should be “they found a significant interaction”.
assistant