Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Protocol of a multicentric prospective cohort study for  the VALIDation of the IBD -Disk 
instrument for assessing disability in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: the VALIDate study.  
 
Version: 2 Date: 27 Feb 2020  
 
Reviewer: Valerie Pittet  
 
Reviewer's report:  
I thank the aut hors for the answers to comments.  
All those were appropriately answered.  
 
I still misunderstand two of those, however.  
 
- the question about why non -oposition rather than consent is still unclear.  
The answer mentions it DOES NOT correspond to a French law (proabably unknown except 
from French people).  
I - and perhaps international readers - would rather be interested in what it DOES correspond to.  
 
- the answer regarding the comment about duplicate collection of disease duration (once at 
baseline, once at FU), knowing that age at diagnosis (hard variable) is also collected once, is also 
unclear.  
Time for collecting data is precious, thus if one variable can be calculated from two others, 
duplicated c ollection is a non sense.  
 
The answer provided did not refer to the variables in question, but to medical and disease history 
(history is ambigous here as time from FU to baseline is also history).  
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your c omments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in yo ur comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in y our comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publi cation of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you curr ently applying for any patents  relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any  other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
 
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named repo rt 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understan d that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Protocol of a multicentric prospective cohort study for  the VALIDation of the IBD -Disk 
instrument for assessing disability in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: the VALIDate study.  
 
Version: 2 Date: 27 Feb 2020  
 
Reviewer: Valerie Pittet  
 
Reviewer's report:  
I thank the aut hors for the answers to comments.  
All those were appropriately answered.  
 
I still misunderstand two of those, however.  
 
- the question about why non -oposition rather than consent is still unclear.  
The answer mentions it DOES NOT correspond to a French law (proabably unknown except 
from French people).  
I - and perhaps international readers - would rather be interested in what it DOES correspond to.  
 
- the answer regarding the comment about duplicate collection of disease duration (once at 
baseline, once at FU), knowing that age at diagnosis (hard variable) is also collected once, is also 
unclear.  
Time for collecting data is precious, thus if one variable can be calculated from two others, 
duplicated c ollection is a non sense.  
 
The answer provided did not refer to the variables in question, but to medical and disease history 
(history is ambigous here as time from FU to baseline is also history).  
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your c omments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in yo ur comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in y our comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publi cation of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you curr ently applying for any patents  relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any  other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
 
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named repo rt 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understan d that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Protocol of a multicentric prospective cohort study for  the VALIDation of the IBD -Disk 
instrument for assessing disability in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: the VALIDate study.  
 
Version: 2 Date: 27 Feb 2020  
 
Reviewer: Valerie Pittet  
 
Reviewer's report:  
I thank the aut hors for the answers to comments.  
All those were appropriately answered.  
 
I still misunderstand two of those, however.  
 
- the question about why non -oposition rather than consent is still unclear.  
The answer mentions it DOES NOT correspond to a French law (proabably unknown except 
from French people).  
I - and perhaps international readers - would rather be interested in what it DOES correspond to.  
 
- the answer regarding the comment about duplicate collection of disease duration (once at 
baseline, once at FU), knowing that age at diagnosis (hard variable) is also collected once, is also 
unclear.  
Time for collecting data is precious, thus if one variable can be calculated from two others, 
duplicated c ollection is a non sense.  
 
The answer provided did not refer to the variables in question, but to medical and disease history 
(history is ambigous here as time from FU to baseline is also history).  
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your c omments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in yo ur comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in y our comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publi cation of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you curr ently applying for any patents  relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any  other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
 
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named repo rt 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understan d that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant