Title: Inflammatory bowel disease Patients' Perspectives of non-medical needs
Version: 2 Date: 27 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
No - there are major issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: In the abstract, EFA should be presented first as this is the analysis
sequence.
The presentation of results is confusing - how many factors were identified by the EFA and how
large was the item pool? The way it is presented there are over 10 factors identified.
Less than 50% of the sample of 1772 IBD patients participated. This should be clearer with
regard to the response rate presented.
It is not clear why the authors would include demographic questions within the item pool.
There are a number of different type of questions - with different likert-type options. This should
be justified.
The sample size of 644 was also not consistent with the  sample sizes previously reported.
There appears to be many different scales and factors that were analysed in this study. It’s not
clear if this is one instrument or a series of scales the authors are validating. If this was one
instrument - one EFA and one CFA should be run on the entire pool of items. Or have they
developed a number of small scales?
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
In the abstract, EFA should be presented first as this is the analysis sequence.
The presentation of results is confusing - how many factors were identified by the EFA and how
large was the item pool? The way it is presented there are over 10 factors identified.
Less than 50% of the sample of 1772 IBD patients participated. This should be clearer with
regard to the response rate presented.
It is not clear why the authors would include demographic questions within the item pool.
There are a number of different type of questions - with different likert-type options. This should
be justified.
The sample size of 644 was also not consistent with the  sample sizes previously reported.
There appears to be many different scales and factors that were analysed in this study. It’s not
clear if this is one instrument or a series of scales the authors are validating. If this was one
instrument - one EFA and one CFA should be run on the entire pool of items. Or have they
developed a number of small scales?
Title: Inflammatory bowel disease Patients' Perspectives of non-medical needs
Version: 2 Date: 27 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
No - there are major issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: In the abstract, EFA should be presented first as this is the analysis
sequence.
The presentation of results is confusing - how many factors were identified by the EFA and how
large was the item pool? The way it is presented there are over 10 factors identified.
Less than 50% of the sample of 1772 IBD patients participated. This should be clearer with
regard to the response rate presented.
It is not clear why the authors would include demographic questions within the item pool.
There are a number of different type of questions - with different likert-type options. This should
be justified.
The sample size of 644 was also not consistent with the  sample sizes previously reported.
There appears to be many different scales and factors that were analysed in this study. It’s not
clear if this is one instrument or a series of scales the authors are validating. If this was one
instrument - one EFA and one CFA should be run on the entire pool of items. Or have they
developed a number of small scales?
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
In the abstract, EFA should be presented first as this is the analysis sequence.
The presentation of results is confusing - how many factors were identified by the EFA and how
large was the item pool? The way it is presented there are over 10 factors identified.
Less than 50% of the sample of 1772 IBD patients participated. This should be clearer with
regard to the response rate presented.
It is not clear why the authors would include demographic questions within the item pool.
There are a number of different type of questions - with different likert-type options. This should
be justified.
The sample size of 644 was also not consistent with the  sample sizes previously reported.
There appears to be many different scales and factors that were analysed in this study. It’s not
clear if this is one instrument or a series of scales the authors are validating. If this was one
instrument - one EFA and one CFA should be run on the entire pool of items. Or have they
developed a number of small scales?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Inflammatory bowel disease Patients' Perspectives of non-medical needs
Version: 2 Date: 27 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
No - there are major issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: In the abstract, EFA should be presented first as this is the analysis
sequence.
The presentation of results is confusing - how many factors were identified by the EFA and how
large was the item pool? The way it is presented there are over 10 factors identified.
Less than 50% of the sample of 1772 IBD patients participated. This should be clearer with
regard to the response rate presented.
It is not clear why the authors would include demographic questions within the item pool.
There are a number of different type of questions - with different likert-type options. This should
be justified.
The sample size of 644 was also not consistent with the  sample sizes previously reported.
There appears to be many different scales and factors that were analysed in this study. It’s not
clear if this is one instrument or a series of scales the authors are validating. If this was one
instrument - one EFA and one CFA should be run on the entire pool of items. Or have they
developed a number of small scales?
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
In the abstract, EFA should be presented first as this is the analysis sequence.
The presentation of results is confusing - how many factors were identified by the EFA and how
large was the item pool? The way it is presented there are over 10 factors identified.
Less than 50% of the sample of 1772 IBD patients participated. This should be clearer with
regard to the response rate presented.
It is not clear why the authors would include demographic questions within the item pool.
There are a number of different type of questions - with different likert-type options. This should
be justified.
The sample size of 644 was also not consistent with the  sample sizes previously reported.
There appears to be many different scales and factors that were analysed in this study. It’s not
clear if this is one instrument or a series of scales the authors are validating. If this was one
instrument - one EFA and one CFA should be run on the entire pool of items. Or have they
developed a number of small scales?
assistant