Title: CT enterography for evaluation of disease activity in patients with ileocolonic Crohn's
disease
Version: 3 Date: 23 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Notes:
The authors have addressed most of the issues in introduction, methodology and discussion
sections.
1. The authors need to put in their use of HBI instead of CDAI as a drawback of their study. As
to calling CDAI as "complex, time-consuming, and impractical", it can be put in the drawback
section with appropriate reference.
2. I do acknowledge the reference quoted for lack of use of any anti-motility agent. However,
I urge you to read the drawbacks of the study. You may justify their omission as an institute
policy; but a justification needs to be included in the methodology section.
3. I would still insist on a flow chart of patient selection and in brief the criteria followed for
reviewing image quality.
4. "Why were the patients with incomplete ileo-colonoscopy not excluded? How did the authors
correlate CT findings in non visualised segments (endoscopy) in these patients? - CDEIS score is
not accurate if we included patients with incomplete ileo-colonoscopy indeed. In order to reduce
the bias of statistical analysis, the statistical analysis is based on both per lesion and per patient."
This till doesn't answer my question.
5. "There is no association between the mural thickness and mural stratification. these
two parameters were independent of each other" - what method did you use to check this.
6. Kindly include absence of collection of data about radiation exposure as a drawback.
7. Finally, presentation of results section is still not proper. It needs elaboration. While it may
be easy for the authors to omit some results; it makes it difficult for the readers to understand
the process. If it were a purely clinical paper, it would have been understandable. However, if
you put the "Development of CT enterography index" in the title - results and statistics need
much more detail.
Title: CT enterography for evaluation of disease activity in patients with ileocolonic Crohn's
disease
Version: 3 Date: 23 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Notes:
The authors have addressed most of the issues in introduction, methodology and discussion
sections.
1. The authors need to put in their use of HBI instead of CDAI as a drawback of their study. As
to calling CDAI as "complex, time-consuming, and impractical", it can be put in the drawback
section with appropriate reference.
2. I do acknowledge the reference quoted for lack of use of any anti-motility agent. However,
I urge you to read the drawbacks of the study. You may justify their omission as an institute
policy; but a justification needs to be included in the methodology section.
3. I would still insist on a flow chart of patient selection and in brief the criteria followed for
reviewing image quality.
4. "Why were the patients with incomplete ileo-colonoscopy not excluded? How did the authors
correlate CT findings in non visualised segments (endoscopy) in these patients? - CDEIS score is
not accurate if we included patients with incomplete ileo-colonoscopy indeed. In order to reduce
the bias of statistical analysis, the statistical analysis is based on both per lesion and per patient."
This till doesn't answer my question.
5. "There is no association between the mural thickness and mural stratification. these
two parameters were independent of each other" - what method did you use to check this.
6. Kindly include absence of collection of data about radiation exposure as a drawback.
7. Finally, presentation of results section is still not proper. It needs elaboration. While it may
be easy for the authors to omit some results; it makes it difficult for the readers to understand
the process. If it were a purely clinical paper, it would have been understandable. However, if
you put the "Development of CT enterography index" in the title - results and statistics need
much more detail.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: CT enterography for evaluation of disease activity in patients with ileocolonic Crohn's
disease
Version: 3 Date: 23 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Notes:
The authors have addressed most of the issues in introduction, methodology and discussion
sections.
1. The authors need to put in their use of HBI instead of CDAI as a drawback of their study. As
to calling CDAI as "complex, time-consuming, and impractical", it can be put in the drawback
section with appropriate reference.
2. I do acknowledge the reference quoted for lack of use of any anti-motility agent. However,
I urge you to read the drawbacks of the study. You may justify their omission as an institute
policy; but a justification needs to be included in the methodology section.
3. I would still insist on a flow chart of patient selection and in brief the criteria followed for
reviewing image quality.
4. "Why were the patients with incomplete ileo-colonoscopy not excluded? How did the authors
correlate CT findings in non visualised segments (endoscopy) in these patients? - CDEIS score is
not accurate if we included patients with incomplete ileo-colonoscopy indeed. In order to reduce
the bias of statistical analysis, the statistical analysis is based on both per lesion and per patient."
This till doesn't answer my question.
5. "There is no association between the mural thickness and mural stratification. these
two parameters were independent of each other" - what method did you use to check this.
6. Kindly include absence of collection of data about radiation exposure as a drawback.
7. Finally, presentation of results section is still not proper. It needs elaboration. While it may
be easy for the authors to omit some results; it makes it difficult for the readers to understand
the process. If it were a purely clinical paper, it would have been understandable. However, if
you put the "Development of CT enterography index" in the title - results and statistics need
much more detail.
assistant