Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Faecal calprotectin is the biomarker that best disting uishes remission from different 
degrees of endosco pic activity in Crohn's disease  
 
Version: 0 Date: 18 Apr 2019  
 
Reviewer: Triana Lobaton  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is one study more about the relationship of FC and endoscopic activity in CD patients. 
There are several bigger cohorts showing similar results so in this sense this study adds very little 
to the current evidence.  
 
 
 
Further, there are some comments that need to be taken into account  
 
-When the authors affirm that "The ideal marker.....although promising new markers are 
surging.", they talk like FC would not exist. This is a wrong statement: we do have very good 
markers such as FC, although not perfect at all and although still many iss ues are not clarified  
such as the optimal cut -off levels for some specific situations of the inter -variability between 
tests.  
 
 
- Language revision is needed  
 
 
- Presentation of the results with graphics is also needed  
 
 
- The conclusion needs to be modified : a cut -off higher than 1000 is not showing just disease 
activity but very disease activity  
 
 
- Why did the authors not do any multivariate analysis?  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the  authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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 your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursemen ts, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication 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 currently applying for any patents  relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an org anization 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 declare that 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 f or publication, my named report 
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 understand 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: Faecal calprotectin is the biomarker that best disting uishes remission from different 
degrees of endosco pic activity in Crohn's disease  
 
Version: 0 Date: 18 Apr 2019  
 
Reviewer: Triana Lobaton  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is one study more about the relationship of FC and endoscopic activity in CD patients. 
There are several bigger cohorts showing similar results so in this sense this study adds very little 
to the current evidence.  
 
 
 
Further, there are some comments that need to be taken into account  
 
-When the authors affirm that "The ideal marker.....although promising new markers are 
surging.", they talk like FC would not exist. This is a wrong statement: we do have very good 
markers such as FC, although not perfect at all and although still many iss ues are not clarified  
such as the optimal cut -off levels for some specific situations of the inter -variability between 
tests.  
 
 
- Language revision is needed  
 
 
- Presentation of the results with graphics is also needed  
 
 
- The conclusion needs to be modified : a cut -off higher than 1000 is not showing just disease 
activity but very disease activity  
 
 
- Why did the authors not do any multivariate analysis?  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the  authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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 your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursemen ts, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication 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 currently applying for any patents  relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an org anization 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 declare that 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 f or publication, my named report 
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 understand 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: Faecal calprotectin is the biomarker that best disting uishes remission from different 
degrees of endosco pic activity in Crohn's disease  
 
Version: 0 Date: 18 Apr 2019  
 
Reviewer: Triana Lobaton  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is one study more about the relationship of FC and endoscopic activity in CD patients. 
There are several bigger cohorts showing similar results so in this sense this study adds very little 
to the current evidence.  
 
 
 
Further, there are some comments that need to be taken into account  
 
-When the authors affirm that "The ideal marker.....although promising new markers are 
surging.", they talk like FC would not exist. This is a wrong statement: we do have very good 
markers such as FC, although not perfect at all and although still many iss ues are not clarified  
such as the optimal cut -off levels for some specific situations of the inter -variability between 
tests.  
 
 
- Language revision is needed  
 
 
- Presentation of the results with graphics is also needed  
 
 
- The conclusion needs to be modified : a cut -off higher than 1000 is not showing just disease 
activity but very disease activity  
 
 
- Why did the authors not do any multivariate analysis?  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the  authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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 your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursemen ts, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication 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 currently applying for any patents  relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an org anization 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 declare that 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 f or publication, my named report 
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 understand 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