Reviewer's report
Title:Moderate performance of serum S100A12, in distinguishing inflammatory
bowel disease from irritable bowel syndrome
Version: 1Date:31 May 2010
Reviewer: Steven Leach
Reviewer's report:
The report by Manolakis et al examined serum S100A12 levels in adult IBD (64
with ulcerative colitis and 64 with Crohn’s disease) and IBS (73) patients. Serum
S100A12 levels were investigated in relation to disease discrimination (CD/UC vs
IBS), disease activity, disease behaviour, disease extent, disease location,
disease duration, extra-intestinal manifestation, gender, age, smoking, treatment
and correlation with current serum inflammatory markers (CRP and serum
amyloid A). The authors conclude that Serum S100A12 exhibits moderate
performance as a serum based marker to distinguish IBD from IBS and therefore
its inclusion in the palette of established serum markers should be considered.
Overall the manuscript is well presented, the question asked is relevant, the
methods and group size is suitable, the analysis is generally adequate (see
exception below) and the conclusions are balanced and appropriate.
Minor Essential revision
1. I have one concern that should be clarified. For table 2, it is not clear what ‘P
for trend’ refers to. The method state that two-group tests (t –test or Mann
Whitney) were used however there are three groups for each UC and CD which
indicates that group tests (ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis) should be used.
Discretionary Revisions:
2. The finding that serum S100A12 levels was higher (although not significantly)
in UC non-smokers compared to UC smokers is interesting. It would be of
interest to also include the mean/median CAI score for these groups.
3. Serum S100A12 levels were only compared to active/inactive disease.
Additionally serum S100A12 can also be correlated with CDAI/CAI, which may
provide additional insight into the association between S100A12 and disease
activity.
4. Separate ROCs for CD and UC could also be included with the combined IBD
ROC on figure 1
5. For tables 2, 3 and 4 it would be informative to also include the N values for
each of the groups
6. First paragraph of conclusions, TNF-a should be TNF-#.
7. Table 1. Disease duration. Please clarify that disease duration is in years
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Moderate performance of serum S100A12, in distinguishing inflammatory
bowel disease from irritable bowel syndrome
Version: 1Date:31 May 2010
Reviewer: Steven Leach
Reviewer's report:
The report by Manolakis et al examined serum S100A12 levels in adult IBD (64
with ulcerative colitis and 64 with Crohn’s disease) and IBS (73) patients. Serum
S100A12 levels were investigated in relation to disease discrimination (CD/UC vs
IBS), disease activity, disease behaviour, disease extent, disease location,
disease duration, extra-intestinal manifestation, gender, age, smoking, treatment
and correlation with current serum inflammatory markers (CRP and serum
amyloid A). The authors conclude that Serum S100A12 exhibits moderate
performance as a serum based marker to distinguish IBD from IBS and therefore
its inclusion in the palette of established serum markers should be considered.
Overall the manuscript is well presented, the question asked is relevant, the
methods and group size is suitable, the analysis is generally adequate (see
exception below) and the conclusions are balanced and appropriate.
Minor Essential revision
1. I have one concern that should be clarified. For table 2, it is not clear what ‘P
for trend’ refers to. The method state that two-group tests (t –test or Mann
Whitney) were used however there are three groups for each UC and CD which
indicates that group tests (ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis) should be used.
Discretionary Revisions:
2. The finding that serum S100A12 levels was higher (although not significantly)
in UC non-smokers compared to UC smokers is interesting. It would be of
interest to also include the mean/median CAI score for these groups.
3. Serum S100A12 levels were only compared to active/inactive disease.
Additionally serum S100A12 can also be correlated with CDAI/CAI, which may
provide additional insight into the association between S100A12 and disease
activity.
4. Separate ROCs for CD and UC could also be included with the combined IBD
ROC on figure 1
5. For tables 2, 3 and 4 it would be informative to also include the N values for
each of the groups
6. First paragraph of conclusions, TNF-a should be TNF-#.
7. Table 1. Disease duration. Please clarify that disease duration is in years
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Moderate performance of serum S100A12, in distinguishing inflammatory
bowel disease from irritable bowel syndrome
Version: 1Date:31 May 2010
Reviewer: Steven Leach
Reviewer's report:
The report by Manolakis et al examined serum S100A12 levels in adult IBD (64
with ulcerative colitis and 64 with Crohn’s disease) and IBS (73) patients. Serum
S100A12 levels were investigated in relation to disease discrimination (CD/UC vs
IBS), disease activity, disease behaviour, disease extent, disease location,
disease duration, extra-intestinal manifestation, gender, age, smoking, treatment
and correlation with current serum inflammatory markers (CRP and serum
amyloid A). The authors conclude that Serum S100A12 exhibits moderate
performance as a serum based marker to distinguish IBD from IBS and therefore
its inclusion in the palette of established serum markers should be considered.
Overall the manuscript is well presented, the question asked is relevant, the
methods and group size is suitable, the analysis is generally adequate (see
exception below) and the conclusions are balanced and appropriate.
Minor Essential revision
1. I have one concern that should be clarified. For table 2, it is not clear what ‘P
for trend’ refers to. The method state that two-group tests (t –test or Mann
Whitney) were used however there are three groups for each UC and CD which
indicates that group tests (ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis) should be used.
Discretionary Revisions:
2. The finding that serum S100A12 levels was higher (although not significantly)
in UC non-smokers compared to UC smokers is interesting. It would be of
interest to also include the mean/median CAI score for these groups.
3. Serum S100A12 levels were only compared to active/inactive disease.
Additionally serum S100A12 can also be correlated with CDAI/CAI, which may
provide additional insight into the association between S100A12 and disease
activity.
4. Separate ROCs for CD and UC could also be included with the combined IBD
ROC on figure 1
5. For tables 2, 3 and 4 it would be informative to also include the N values for
each of the groups
6. First paragraph of conclusions, TNF-a should be TNF-#.
7. Table 1. Disease duration. Please clarify that disease duration is in years
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant