Reviewer's report
Title:Anti-Outer membrane protein C and anti-glycoprotein 2 antibodies in
inflammatory bowel disease and their association with complicated forms of
Crohn's disease
Version:1Date:10 September 2014
Reviewer: Federico Biagi
Reviewer's report:
In this paper Kohoutova et al. studied anti-Outer membrane protein C and
anti-glycoprotein 2 antibodies in inflammatory bowel disease and their
association with complicated forms of Crohn´s disease. There are some
concerns:
1. The authors state that this is not a novel study but it is confirmatory of previous
ones. However, the present study is difficult to read. The result section needs to
be simplified and better explained.
2. Also the tables are rather chaotic. For example, reading the text, I assumed
that tables 2 and 3 presented clinical data on the patients (n° of males and
females, age at diagnosis, age at testing, etc) while they present antibody
results. The antibodies results could be all presented in these tables, including
statistical significance, and omitted from the main results section.
3. The authors write that this is a prospective study performed between 2010 and
2012. Since all the experiments were performed with ELISA techniques, I think
they collected the serum samples, froze and stored them to be tested all together
with the ELISA kits. If this should be the case, I am not sure that this is a
prospective study.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Anti-Outer membrane protein C and anti-glycoprotein 2 antibodies in
inflammatory bowel disease and their association with complicated forms of
Crohn's disease
Version:1Date:10 September 2014
Reviewer: Federico Biagi
Reviewer's report:
In this paper Kohoutova et al. studied anti-Outer membrane protein C and
anti-glycoprotein 2 antibodies in inflammatory bowel disease and their
association with complicated forms of Crohn´s disease. There are some
concerns:
1. The authors state that this is not a novel study but it is confirmatory of previous
ones. However, the present study is difficult to read. The result section needs to
be simplified and better explained.
2. Also the tables are rather chaotic. For example, reading the text, I assumed
that tables 2 and 3 presented clinical data on the patients (n° of males and
females, age at diagnosis, age at testing, etc) while they present antibody
results. The antibodies results could be all presented in these tables, including
statistical significance, and omitted from the main results section.
3. The authors write that this is a prospective study performed between 2010 and
2012. Since all the experiments were performed with ELISA techniques, I think
they collected the serum samples, froze and stored them to be tested all together
with the ELISA kits. If this should be the case, I am not sure that this is a
prospective study.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Anti-Outer membrane protein C and anti-glycoprotein 2 antibodies in
inflammatory bowel disease and their association with complicated forms of
Crohn's disease
Version:1Date:10 September 2014
Reviewer: Federico Biagi
Reviewer's report:
In this paper Kohoutova et al. studied anti-Outer membrane protein C and
anti-glycoprotein 2 antibodies in inflammatory bowel disease and their
association with complicated forms of Crohn´s disease. There are some
concerns:
1. The authors state that this is not a novel study but it is confirmatory of previous
ones. However, the present study is difficult to read. The result section needs to
be simplified and better explained.
2. Also the tables are rather chaotic. For example, reading the text, I assumed
that tables 2 and 3 presented clinical data on the patients (n° of males and
females, age at diagnosis, age at testing, etc) while they present antibody
results. The antibodies results could be all presented in these tables, including
statistical significance, and omitted from the main results section.
3. The authors write that this is a prospective study performed between 2010 and
2012. Since all the experiments were performed with ELISA techniques, I think
they collected the serum samples, froze and stored them to be tested all together
with the ELISA kits. If this should be the case, I am not sure that this is a
prospective study.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant