Title: The effectiveness of combining ursodeoxycholic acid with vitamin D in treating patients
with primary biliary cholangitis and its impact on hepatic fibrosis: A Randomized Trial
Version: 2 Date: 25 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Abulitifu and colleagues evaluated in a randomized trial the effects of combining UDCA with
vitamin D in treating patients with PBC. The aim of the study is interesting but several major
issues should be addressed to render the study feasible for publication
Major Criticisms:
-Study population in not adequately described.
For example, it is unclear how many patients were responder to UDCA at enrollment (see
enrollment criteria, i.e., page 5, line 85:  “the patients must have completed at least 2 years
of treatment”). This point is very relevant since, from the introduction of UDCA therapy, new
treatment strategies are mainly focused on PBC patients non responder or intolerant to UDCA.
In addition, it is not reported the number of patients who had liver cirrhosis at enrollment.
-Data exposition is confused, difficult to follow and needs a substantial improvement.
In the text no mean or median values are reported, while in figures 2, 3 and 4, it is very difficult
to read such values; also units of measures are not clearly indicated. By a logical point of view,
figure 3 and the paragraph starting from lines 164-165 should precede figure 2 and the paragraph
starting from lines 148-151. I suggest to delete figures 5 and 8 since the data have been already
reported in the text. Figure 7 is almost impossible to understand and these data may appear in a
table where also units of measures should be clearly indicated.
-The discussion need to be shortened.
In the first part of this section, data already reported in the result section are repeated rather
than discussed.
Other points:
Abstract: Lines 32-34 is a repetition of the sentences reported in lines 17-19
Methods: evaluation of non-invasive detection of hepatic fibrosis needs some more details
Results: Lines 206-209 is a repetition of sentences already reported in the method section (lines
101-105)
Discussion: lines 240-242 is a repetition of sentences already reported in the method section
(lines 101-105) and in the result section (lines 206-209)
Title: The effectiveness of combining ursodeoxycholic acid with vitamin D in treating patients
with primary biliary cholangitis and its impact on hepatic fibrosis: A Randomized Trial
Version: 2 Date: 25 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Abulitifu and colleagues evaluated in a randomized trial the effects of combining UDCA with
vitamin D in treating patients with PBC. The aim of the study is interesting but several major
issues should be addressed to render the study feasible for publication
Major Criticisms:
-Study population in not adequately described.
For example, it is unclear how many patients were responder to UDCA at enrollment (see
enrollment criteria, i.e., page 5, line 85:  “the patients must have completed at least 2 years
of treatment”). This point is very relevant since, from the introduction of UDCA therapy, new
treatment strategies are mainly focused on PBC patients non responder or intolerant to UDCA.
In addition, it is not reported the number of patients who had liver cirrhosis at enrollment.
-Data exposition is confused, difficult to follow and needs a substantial improvement.
In the text no mean or median values are reported, while in figures 2, 3 and 4, it is very difficult
to read such values; also units of measures are not clearly indicated. By a logical point of view,
figure 3 and the paragraph starting from lines 164-165 should precede figure 2 and the paragraph
starting from lines 148-151. I suggest to delete figures 5 and 8 since the data have been already
reported in the text. Figure 7 is almost impossible to understand and these data may appear in a
table where also units of measures should be clearly indicated.
-The discussion need to be shortened.
In the first part of this section, data already reported in the result section are repeated rather
than discussed.
Other points:
Abstract: Lines 32-34 is a repetition of the sentences reported in lines 17-19
Methods: evaluation of non-invasive detection of hepatic fibrosis needs some more details
Results: Lines 206-209 is a repetition of sentences already reported in the method section (lines
101-105)
Discussion: lines 240-242 is a repetition of sentences already reported in the method section
(lines 101-105) and in the result section (lines 206-209)
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The effectiveness of combining ursodeoxycholic acid with vitamin D in treating patients
with primary biliary cholangitis and its impact on hepatic fibrosis: A Randomized Trial
Version: 2 Date: 25 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Abulitifu and colleagues evaluated in a randomized trial the effects of combining UDCA with
vitamin D in treating patients with PBC. The aim of the study is interesting but several major
issues should be addressed to render the study feasible for publication
Major Criticisms:
-Study population in not adequately described.
For example, it is unclear how many patients were responder to UDCA at enrollment (see
enrollment criteria, i.e., page 5, line 85:  “the patients must have completed at least 2 years
of treatment”). This point is very relevant since, from the introduction of UDCA therapy, new
treatment strategies are mainly focused on PBC patients non responder or intolerant to UDCA.
In addition, it is not reported the number of patients who had liver cirrhosis at enrollment.
-Data exposition is confused, difficult to follow and needs a substantial improvement.
In the text no mean or median values are reported, while in figures 2, 3 and 4, it is very difficult
to read such values; also units of measures are not clearly indicated. By a logical point of view,
figure 3 and the paragraph starting from lines 164-165 should precede figure 2 and the paragraph
starting from lines 148-151. I suggest to delete figures 5 and 8 since the data have been already
reported in the text. Figure 7 is almost impossible to understand and these data may appear in a
table where also units of measures should be clearly indicated.
-The discussion need to be shortened.
In the first part of this section, data already reported in the result section are repeated rather
than discussed.
Other points:
Abstract: Lines 32-34 is a repetition of the sentences reported in lines 17-19
Methods: evaluation of non-invasive detection of hepatic fibrosis needs some more details
Results: Lines 206-209 is a repetition of sentences already reported in the method section (lines
101-105)
Discussion: lines 240-242 is a repetition of sentences already reported in the method section
(lines 101-105) and in the result section (lines 206-209)
assistant