Title: Indicators of suboptimal response to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in patients from
China with inflammatory bowel disease: Results from the EXPLORE study
Version: 8 Date: 22 Aug 2021
Reviewer's report:
Many thanks for allowing me to review once more the revised manuscript titled " Indicators
of suboptimal response to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in patients from China with
inflammatory bowel disease: Results from the EXPLORE study". I still believe that while the
authors did improve the manuscript considerably, 2 points raised by me initially, need attention.
- A table comparing epidemiological and clinical factors between patients without suboptimal
response and those with sub-optimal response,
While the authors rightfully claim that such comparisons were made, the data proper were not
presented in the paper. For the sake of presentating transparent and complete set of the data
observed, this table is still required.
- Adding a separate analyses for primary non-responders and SLOR
The author righfully point that power issues limit this anlysis. Nevetheless, the authors chose
to present these comparison in the figures, Perhaps such secondary analysis could be added to
the supplementary material?
All the other points have be adequately adressed. I believe that upon revision of this version
according to the points raised above the manuscript may be acepted.
Thank you again for allowing me to review this revised manuscript.
Kind regards,
Title: Indicators of suboptimal response to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in patients from
China with inflammatory bowel disease: Results from the EXPLORE study
Version: 8 Date: 22 Aug 2021
Reviewer's report:
Many thanks for allowing me to review once more the revised manuscript titled " Indicators
of suboptimal response to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in patients from China with
inflammatory bowel disease: Results from the EXPLORE study". I still believe that while the
authors did improve the manuscript considerably, 2 points raised by me initially, need attention.
- A table comparing epidemiological and clinical factors between patients without suboptimal
response and those with sub-optimal response,
While the authors rightfully claim that such comparisons were made, the data proper were not
presented in the paper. For the sake of presentating transparent and complete set of the data
observed, this table is still required.
- Adding a separate analyses for primary non-responders and SLOR
The author righfully point that power issues limit this anlysis. Nevetheless, the authors chose
to present these comparison in the figures, Perhaps such secondary analysis could be added to
the supplementary material?
All the other points have be adequately adressed. I believe that upon revision of this version
according to the points raised above the manuscript may be acepted.
Thank you again for allowing me to review this revised manuscript.
Kind regards,
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Indicators of suboptimal response to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in patients from
China with inflammatory bowel disease: Results from the EXPLORE study
Version: 8 Date: 22 Aug 2021
Reviewer's report:
Many thanks for allowing me to review once more the revised manuscript titled " Indicators
of suboptimal response to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in patients from China with
inflammatory bowel disease: Results from the EXPLORE study". I still believe that while the
authors did improve the manuscript considerably, 2 points raised by me initially, need attention.
- A table comparing epidemiological and clinical factors between patients without suboptimal
response and those with sub-optimal response,
While the authors rightfully claim that such comparisons were made, the data proper were not
presented in the paper. For the sake of presentating transparent and complete set of the data
observed, this table is still required.
- Adding a separate analyses for primary non-responders and SLOR
The author righfully point that power issues limit this anlysis. Nevetheless, the authors chose
to present these comparison in the figures, Perhaps such secondary analysis could be added to
the supplementary material?
All the other points have be adequately adressed. I believe that upon revision of this version
according to the points raised above the manuscript may be acepted.
Thank you again for allowing me to review this revised manuscript.
Kind regards,
assistant