Title: Prevalence of frailty among patients with inflammatory bowel disease and its association
with clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Version: 1 Date: 31 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
The impact of frailty on clinical outcomes and prevalence in patients with inflammatory bowel
disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frailty is a pertinent question in management
of IBD patients. Frail phenotype needs dedicated management. The authors have tried to work
in this area. However they need to work on various aspects of the manuscript.
It's better to define clearly: adverse clinical outcomes in methods.
Was any data available on high versus low risk of frailty in IBD patients?
What was the prevalence of frailty in elderly as compared to young IBD patients?
The subgroup analysis on age and comorbidities would have a relevant impact on outcomes of
frailty in IBD patients. This needs to be shown in results systematically.
The outcomes were two only as mentioned in the abstract. It's better to have primary and
secondary outcomes here. In methods it was mentioned this study included data on frailty in
IBD patients with at least one clinical outcome.
The search has been nearly a year now. Explain 56 incompatible literature as i couldnt find it
in exclusion criteria. Were RCTs and conference abstracts decided to be excluded a priori?It
should be mentioned in methods clearly.
The impact of frailty on the clinical prognosis of IBD patients needs to be redefined more
objectively. Is it just adverse outcomes as mentioned in the abstract ? Hospitalization, need of
surgery, readmission or mortality give better meaning than just adverse outcomes. It needs to
be emphasized in the abstract also under the results section.
There were only 2 studies for each analysis of hospitalization, surgery and complication. This
could have been presented as descriptive data only.
One table should be added in results with each study main outcome and prevalence for easy
interpretation.
The manuscript needs a good grammar check. Minor spelling mistakes at places would need
a check.
Title: Prevalence of frailty among patients with inflammatory bowel disease and its association
with clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Version: 1 Date: 31 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
The impact of frailty on clinical outcomes and prevalence in patients with inflammatory bowel
disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frailty is a pertinent question in management
of IBD patients. Frail phenotype needs dedicated management. The authors have tried to work
in this area. However they need to work on various aspects of the manuscript.
It's better to define clearly: adverse clinical outcomes in methods.
Was any data available on high versus low risk of frailty in IBD patients?
What was the prevalence of frailty in elderly as compared to young IBD patients?
The subgroup analysis on age and comorbidities would have a relevant impact on outcomes of
frailty in IBD patients. This needs to be shown in results systematically.
The outcomes were two only as mentioned in the abstract. It's better to have primary and
secondary outcomes here. In methods it was mentioned this study included data on frailty in
IBD patients with at least one clinical outcome.
The search has been nearly a year now. Explain 56 incompatible literature as i couldnt find it
in exclusion criteria. Were RCTs and conference abstracts decided to be excluded a priori?It
should be mentioned in methods clearly.
The impact of frailty on the clinical prognosis of IBD patients needs to be redefined more
objectively. Is it just adverse outcomes as mentioned in the abstract ? Hospitalization, need of
surgery, readmission or mortality give better meaning than just adverse outcomes. It needs to
be emphasized in the abstract also under the results section.
There were only 2 studies for each analysis of hospitalization, surgery and complication. This
could have been presented as descriptive data only.
One table should be added in results with each study main outcome and prevalence for easy
interpretation.
The manuscript needs a good grammar check. Minor spelling mistakes at places would need
a check.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Prevalence of frailty among patients with inflammatory bowel disease and its association
with clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Version: 1 Date: 31 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
The impact of frailty on clinical outcomes and prevalence in patients with inflammatory bowel
disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frailty is a pertinent question in management
of IBD patients. Frail phenotype needs dedicated management. The authors have tried to work
in this area. However they need to work on various aspects of the manuscript.
It's better to define clearly: adverse clinical outcomes in methods.
Was any data available on high versus low risk of frailty in IBD patients?
What was the prevalence of frailty in elderly as compared to young IBD patients?
The subgroup analysis on age and comorbidities would have a relevant impact on outcomes of
frailty in IBD patients. This needs to be shown in results systematically.
The outcomes were two only as mentioned in the abstract. It's better to have primary and
secondary outcomes here. In methods it was mentioned this study included data on frailty in
IBD patients with at least one clinical outcome.
The search has been nearly a year now. Explain 56 incompatible literature as i couldnt find it
in exclusion criteria. Were RCTs and conference abstracts decided to be excluded a priori?It
should be mentioned in methods clearly.
The impact of frailty on the clinical prognosis of IBD patients needs to be redefined more
objectively. Is it just adverse outcomes as mentioned in the abstract ? Hospitalization, need of
surgery, readmission or mortality give better meaning than just adverse outcomes. It needs to
be emphasized in the abstract also under the results section.
There were only 2 studies for each analysis of hospitalization, surgery and complication. This
could have been presented as descriptive data only.
One table should be added in results with each study main outcome and prevalence for easy
interpretation.
The manuscript needs a good grammar check. Minor spelling mistakes at places would need
a check.
assistant