Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Magnetic Resonance Enterography, Colonoscopy, and Fecal Calprotectin correlate in 
colonic Crohn ’s Disease  
 
Version: 1 Date: 16 Oct 2019  
 
Reviewer: Pankaj Gupta  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors describe their investigation on correlation of feca l calprotectin (FCP), MR 
enterography (MRE) and colonoscopy for disease activity in colonic Crohn's disease (CD).  
 
 
General comments:  
 
The topic is valid and has clinical implications. The manuscript seems to hypothesize an 
important issue of objective asses sment of disease activity in colonic CD.  
 
There are a few grammatical errors and language editing may be required to improve readability.  
 
 
Specific comments:  
 
Abstract: Conclusion may need to be rewritten in a simple manner taking into account the 
results.  
 
Introduction: Is lengthy. Needs to be reduced and focused.  
 
 
Methodology:  
 
Line 119 -121: The authors included patients who had measurement of FCP levels within a 
maximum of two weeks prior to MRE, and colonoscopy within a maximum of four weeks of the 
MRE. Wh y were these limits chosen. It is a relatively long interval to assess correlation, 
particularly for patients with active disease. What treatment the patients received in between the 
investigations.  
 
Line 140: Please include the dose of MR contrast agent.  
 
Line 166 -176: The authors state that additional MRE findings in the form of fistula, abscess, 
strictures, and enlarged regional lymph nodes were also assessed in addition to MaRIA. 
However, there is no further elaboration of these findings in the results s ection. It will also be 
interesting to note the relationship between the MaRIA and findings not included in the MaRIA 
(fistula, abscess, strictures, and enlarged regional lymph nodes).  
Results:  
 
Please provide more demographic details of the patients. The median CDEIS and MaRIA are not 
provided. Please provide the interval between the FCP, MRE and Colonoscopy. Please consider 
including the results of additional findings on MRE.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and  well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclus ions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript : 
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2.  Do you hold any stocks or shares  in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or 
lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the 
future?  
 
3.  Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents  relating to the content 
of the manuscript?  
4.  Have you recei ved reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization 
that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5.  Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6.  Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer r eview policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Magnetic Resonance Enterography, Colonoscopy, and Fecal Calprotectin correlate in 
colonic Crohn ’s Disease  
 
Version: 1 Date: 16 Oct 2019  
 
Reviewer: Pankaj Gupta  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors describe their investigation on correlation of feca l calprotectin (FCP), MR 
enterography (MRE) and colonoscopy for disease activity in colonic Crohn's disease (CD).  
 
 
General comments:  
 
The topic is valid and has clinical implications. The manuscript seems to hypothesize an 
important issue of objective asses sment of disease activity in colonic CD.  
 
There are a few grammatical errors and language editing may be required to improve readability.  
 
 
Specific comments:  
 
Abstract: Conclusion may need to be rewritten in a simple manner taking into account the 
results.  
 
Introduction: Is lengthy. Needs to be reduced and focused.  
 
 
Methodology:  
 
Line 119 -121: The authors included patients who had measurement of FCP levels within a 
maximum of two weeks prior to MRE, and colonoscopy within a maximum of four weeks of the 
MRE. Wh y were these limits chosen. It is a relatively long interval to assess correlation, 
particularly for patients with active disease. What treatment the patients received in between the 
investigations.  
 
Line 140: Please include the dose of MR contrast agent.  
 
Line 166 -176: The authors state that additional MRE findings in the form of fistula, abscess, 
strictures, and enlarged regional lymph nodes were also assessed in addition to MaRIA. 
However, there is no further elaboration of these findings in the results s ection. It will also be 
interesting to note the relationship between the MaRIA and findings not included in the MaRIA 
(fistula, abscess, strictures, and enlarged regional lymph nodes).  
Results:  
 
Please provide more demographic details of the patients. The median CDEIS and MaRIA are not 
provided. Please provide the interval between the FCP, MRE and Colonoscopy. Please consider 
including the results of additional findings on MRE.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and  well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclus ions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript : 
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2.  Do you hold any stocks or shares  in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or 
lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the 
future?  
 
3.  Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents  relating to the content 
of the manuscript?  
4.  Have you recei ved reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization 
that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5.  Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6.  Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer r eview policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Magnetic Resonance Enterography, Colonoscopy, and Fecal Calprotectin correlate in 
colonic Crohn ’s Disease  
 
Version: 1 Date: 16 Oct 2019  
 
Reviewer: Pankaj Gupta  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors describe their investigation on correlation of feca l calprotectin (FCP), MR 
enterography (MRE) and colonoscopy for disease activity in colonic Crohn's disease (CD).  
 
 
General comments:  
 
The topic is valid and has clinical implications. The manuscript seems to hypothesize an 
important issue of objective asses sment of disease activity in colonic CD.  
 
There are a few grammatical errors and language editing may be required to improve readability.  
 
 
Specific comments:  
 
Abstract: Conclusion may need to be rewritten in a simple manner taking into account the 
results.  
 
Introduction: Is lengthy. Needs to be reduced and focused.  
 
 
Methodology:  
 
Line 119 -121: The authors included patients who had measurement of FCP levels within a 
maximum of two weeks prior to MRE, and colonoscopy within a maximum of four weeks of the 
MRE. Wh y were these limits chosen. It is a relatively long interval to assess correlation, 
particularly for patients with active disease. What treatment the patients received in between the 
investigations.  
 
Line 140: Please include the dose of MR contrast agent.  
 
Line 166 -176: The authors state that additional MRE findings in the form of fistula, abscess, 
strictures, and enlarged regional lymph nodes were also assessed in addition to MaRIA. 
However, there is no further elaboration of these findings in the results s ection. It will also be 
interesting to note the relationship between the MaRIA and findings not included in the MaRIA 
(fistula, abscess, strictures, and enlarged regional lymph nodes).  
Results:  
 
Please provide more demographic details of the patients. The median CDEIS and MaRIA are not 
provided. Please provide the interval between the FCP, MRE and Colonoscopy. Please consider 
including the results of additional findings on MRE.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and  well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclus ions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript : 
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2.  Do you hold any stocks or shares  in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or 
lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the 
future?  
 
3.  Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents  relating to the content 
of the manuscript?  
4.  Have you recei ved reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization 
that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5.  Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6.  Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer r eview policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant