Title: The long-term effect on surgery-free survival of biological compared to conventional
therapy in Crohn’s disease in real world-data: a retrospective study.
Version: 3 Date: 14 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
General comments to the Authors
Major comments
The title emphasizes the use of the propensity matching analysis. If the authors take the results
of the propensity matching analysis as the major conclusion of this study, they should revise the
conclusion as “no significant difference is found in terms of surgery-free survival”. However, the
current conclusion is that biological therapy appears to delay the first intestinal resection, which
is in accordance with the Kaplan-Meier estimate showing that the patients in the biological arm
had a longer surgery-free survival than those in the conventional arm.
In the study design, the authors included all the patients with a diagnosis of CD treated with a
biological drug before their first intestinal resection in the biological arm. The authors should
define the biologics arm in more details. It should include biologics alone or conventional
therapy combined with biologics.
To compare the long-term effect on surgery-free survival of biological and conventional therapy
in Crohn’s disease, the authors performed the survival analysis by drawing the K-M curve. But
Cox regression should be also performed to calculate the HR values and 95 %CI.
There are too many paragraphs in the text. The authors should merge them appropriately.
Minor comments
ABSTRACT
In the sentence “This study shows that the introduction of biological therapy had only a
slight……”, “had” should be revised as “has”. Similar mistakes can be readily seen.
INTRODUCTION
In the sentence “an integration between conventional therapy, biological therapy, nutritional/
supplementation intervention and surgery are the therapeutic tools……”, “an integration” should
be changed into “integration”, and “are the therapeutic tools” should be revised as “is the
therapeutic tool”.
METHODS
In the outcome measures and data sources section, in the sentence “Our primary outcome was
the evaluation of the surgery-free survival since CD diagnosis to the first bowel resection, among
the two following patients’ arms”, “among” should be revised as “between”.
DISCUSSION
In the sentence “…… and we could therefore not distinguish between patients in stable remission
or patients with a remittent active disease”, “or” should be revised as “and”.
Title: The long-term effect on surgery-free survival of biological compared to conventional
therapy in Crohn’s disease in real world-data: a retrospective study.
Version: 3 Date: 14 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
General comments to the Authors
Major comments
The title emphasizes the use of the propensity matching analysis. If the authors take the results
of the propensity matching analysis as the major conclusion of this study, they should revise the
conclusion as “no significant difference is found in terms of surgery-free survival”. However, the
current conclusion is that biological therapy appears to delay the first intestinal resection, which
is in accordance with the Kaplan-Meier estimate showing that the patients in the biological arm
had a longer surgery-free survival than those in the conventional arm.
In the study design, the authors included all the patients with a diagnosis of CD treated with a
biological drug before their first intestinal resection in the biological arm. The authors should
define the biologics arm in more details. It should include biologics alone or conventional
therapy combined with biologics.
To compare the long-term effect on surgery-free survival of biological and conventional therapy
in Crohn’s disease, the authors performed the survival analysis by drawing the K-M curve. But
Cox regression should be also performed to calculate the HR values and 95 %CI.
There are too many paragraphs in the text. The authors should merge them appropriately.
Minor comments
ABSTRACT
In the sentence “This study shows that the introduction of biological therapy had only a
slight……”, “had” should be revised as “has”. Similar mistakes can be readily seen.
INTRODUCTION
In the sentence “an integration between conventional therapy, biological therapy, nutritional/
supplementation intervention and surgery are the therapeutic tools……”, “an integration” should
be changed into “integration”, and “are the therapeutic tools” should be revised as “is the
therapeutic tool”.
METHODS
In the outcome measures and data sources section, in the sentence “Our primary outcome was
the evaluation of the surgery-free survival since CD diagnosis to the first bowel resection, among
the two following patients’ arms”, “among” should be revised as “between”.
DISCUSSION
In the sentence “…… and we could therefore not distinguish between patients in stable remission
or patients with a remittent active disease”, “or” should be revised as “and”.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The long-term effect on surgery-free survival of biological compared to conventional
therapy in Crohn’s disease in real world-data: a retrospective study.
Version: 3 Date: 14 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
General comments to the Authors
Major comments
The title emphasizes the use of the propensity matching analysis. If the authors take the results
of the propensity matching analysis as the major conclusion of this study, they should revise the
conclusion as “no significant difference is found in terms of surgery-free survival”. However, the
current conclusion is that biological therapy appears to delay the first intestinal resection, which
is in accordance with the Kaplan-Meier estimate showing that the patients in the biological arm
had a longer surgery-free survival than those in the conventional arm.
In the study design, the authors included all the patients with a diagnosis of CD treated with a
biological drug before their first intestinal resection in the biological arm. The authors should
define the biologics arm in more details. It should include biologics alone or conventional
therapy combined with biologics.
To compare the long-term effect on surgery-free survival of biological and conventional therapy
in Crohn’s disease, the authors performed the survival analysis by drawing the K-M curve. But
Cox regression should be also performed to calculate the HR values and 95 %CI.
There are too many paragraphs in the text. The authors should merge them appropriately.
Minor comments
ABSTRACT
In the sentence “This study shows that the introduction of biological therapy had only a
slight……”, “had” should be revised as “has”. Similar mistakes can be readily seen.
INTRODUCTION
In the sentence “an integration between conventional therapy, biological therapy, nutritional/
supplementation intervention and surgery are the therapeutic tools……”, “an integration” should
be changed into “integration”, and “are the therapeutic tools” should be revised as “is the
therapeutic tool”.
METHODS
In the outcome measures and data sources section, in the sentence “Our primary outcome was
the evaluation of the surgery-free survival since CD diagnosis to the first bowel resection, among
the two following patients’ arms”, “among” should be revised as “between”.
DISCUSSION
In the sentence “…… and we could therefore not distinguish between patients in stable remission
or patients with a remittent active disease”, “or” should be revised as “and”.
assistant