Title: Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of endoscopy among gastroenterologists in diagnosis
and management of inflammatory bowel disease in China: A multicenter cross-sectional study
Version: 2 Date: 25 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is primarily a survey study that assessed the knowledge, attitude, and practices of
gastroenterologists in China regarding IBD endoscopic indices.  The strengths of this study are
1) inclusion of participants from different provinces in China, ie. geographic diversity and 2)
inclusion of not only survey data but also pre/post training assessment, ie. multi-faceted.
However, there are major weaknesses that should be be futher clarified and/or rectified:
1) The abstract section is vague.  There was no description of who the participants were nor any
mention of their background characteristics..
2) Several words were mentioned repeatedly throughout the manuscript that was either incorrect
or vague.  For example, "SES-CD is most consistent with clinical practice ...".  What does
this means?  Does it means that the SES-CD is the most frequently used endoscopic index in
clinical practice or is it the most user-friendly index?  Another example is the use of the word
"compliance" throughout the manuscript and in Table 3.  Do the authors mean "concordance"
instead of compliance?
3) In the Methods section, the authors need to clearly explain what the training process entails.
How are those gastroenterologists trained?
4) In the Statistical analysis, the authors mentioend using chi-square analysis.  I did not see any
chi-square analysis in the results; only descriptive statistics.
5) Some contradictory statements: Ex: In the Discussion section, the authors mentioned that most
gastroenterologist had mastered endoscopy scoring while in the later paragraph said that most
gastroenterologists had modest knowledge of endoscopic indices.  I would argue that the authors
do not have the data to claim that most gastroenterolgists had mastered endoscopic scoring.
6) Some survey questions introduced bias.  For example, one of the questions asked "the reason
you find UCEIS difficult to master  are"  This does not give an option for the participant to select
that UCEIS is not difficult to master.
7) Multiple syntax errors, missing words, and incorrect referencing needing edits:  a) reference
67, need editing to mean 6-7 or 6,7.  b) reference 20 refers to an irrelevant reference.
Title: Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of endoscopy among gastroenterologists in diagnosis
and management of inflammatory bowel disease in China: A multicenter cross-sectional study
Version: 2 Date: 25 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is primarily a survey study that assessed the knowledge, attitude, and practices of
gastroenterologists in China regarding IBD endoscopic indices.  The strengths of this study are
1) inclusion of participants from different provinces in China, ie. geographic diversity and 2)
inclusion of not only survey data but also pre/post training assessment, ie. multi-faceted.
However, there are major weaknesses that should be be futher clarified and/or rectified:
1) The abstract section is vague.  There was no description of who the participants were nor any
mention of their background characteristics..
2) Several words were mentioned repeatedly throughout the manuscript that was either incorrect
or vague.  For example, "SES-CD is most consistent with clinical practice ...".  What does
this means?  Does it means that the SES-CD is the most frequently used endoscopic index in
clinical practice or is it the most user-friendly index?  Another example is the use of the word
"compliance" throughout the manuscript and in Table 3.  Do the authors mean "concordance"
instead of compliance?
3) In the Methods section, the authors need to clearly explain what the training process entails.
How are those gastroenterologists trained?
4) In the Statistical analysis, the authors mentioend using chi-square analysis.  I did not see any
chi-square analysis in the results; only descriptive statistics.
5) Some contradictory statements: Ex: In the Discussion section, the authors mentioned that most
gastroenterologist had mastered endoscopy scoring while in the later paragraph said that most
gastroenterologists had modest knowledge of endoscopic indices.  I would argue that the authors
do not have the data to claim that most gastroenterolgists had mastered endoscopic scoring.
6) Some survey questions introduced bias.  For example, one of the questions asked "the reason
you find UCEIS difficult to master  are"  This does not give an option for the participant to select
that UCEIS is not difficult to master.
7) Multiple syntax errors, missing words, and incorrect referencing needing edits:  a) reference
67, need editing to mean 6-7 or 6,7.  b) reference 20 refers to an irrelevant reference.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of endoscopy among gastroenterologists in diagnosis
and management of inflammatory bowel disease in China: A multicenter cross-sectional study
Version: 2 Date: 25 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is primarily a survey study that assessed the knowledge, attitude, and practices of
gastroenterologists in China regarding IBD endoscopic indices.  The strengths of this study are
1) inclusion of participants from different provinces in China, ie. geographic diversity and 2)
inclusion of not only survey data but also pre/post training assessment, ie. multi-faceted.
However, there are major weaknesses that should be be futher clarified and/or rectified:
1) The abstract section is vague.  There was no description of who the participants were nor any
mention of their background characteristics..
2) Several words were mentioned repeatedly throughout the manuscript that was either incorrect
or vague.  For example, "SES-CD is most consistent with clinical practice ...".  What does
this means?  Does it means that the SES-CD is the most frequently used endoscopic index in
clinical practice or is it the most user-friendly index?  Another example is the use of the word
"compliance" throughout the manuscript and in Table 3.  Do the authors mean "concordance"
instead of compliance?
3) In the Methods section, the authors need to clearly explain what the training process entails.
How are those gastroenterologists trained?
4) In the Statistical analysis, the authors mentioend using chi-square analysis.  I did not see any
chi-square analysis in the results; only descriptive statistics.
5) Some contradictory statements: Ex: In the Discussion section, the authors mentioned that most
gastroenterologist had mastered endoscopy scoring while in the later paragraph said that most
gastroenterologists had modest knowledge of endoscopic indices.  I would argue that the authors
do not have the data to claim that most gastroenterolgists had mastered endoscopic scoring.
6) Some survey questions introduced bias.  For example, one of the questions asked "the reason
you find UCEIS difficult to master  are"  This does not give an option for the participant to select
that UCEIS is not difficult to master.
7) Multiple syntax errors, missing words, and incorrect referencing needing edits:  a) reference
67, need editing to mean 6-7 or 6,7.  b) reference 20 refers to an irrelevant reference.
assistant