Title: Prognostic Factors for the Efficacy of Infliximab in Patients with Luminal Fistulizing
Crohn’s Disease
Version: 2 Date: 04 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
authors have attempted to address topic with limited data retrospectively.  I would recomend
rejection of the article as there are major limitations in the methodology and analysis of the
available data
Major issues
There are many methodological  limitations in this  study for example
1. Aim of the study was to find prognostic factors over long term (however median follow up
was only 17 months). Information on smoking status, concomitant therapy like antibiotics and
drainage (50%) of the patients had abscess) are lacking, as IFX can not be started in patients
with active sepsis. surprisingly none of the patients with abscess and fistula had severe disease
and almost 30% were in clinical remission. how did author assess response  cases with clinical
remission. censoring of data due to poor follow up can give rise to partial observation which
may be incorrect
2. primary outcome could be either death or need for surgery
3. secondary outcome can't be differentiated from primary outcome
4. what was the event for which concordance  index was calculated ..surgery or death.
5. no mention of ethical clearance is mentioned in the study
minor issues
1. writing of paper can be improved in most of sections eg
discussion of results in methodology should not be done (median follow up). flow of writing is
not engaging and receptions can be avoided.
2. it will be inappropriate to form nomogram in such small sample size, retrospective study with
incomplete follow up
Title: Prognostic Factors for the Efficacy of Infliximab in Patients with Luminal Fistulizing
Crohn’s Disease
Version: 2 Date: 04 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
authors have attempted to address topic with limited data retrospectively.  I would recomend
rejection of the article as there are major limitations in the methodology and analysis of the
available data
Major issues
There are many methodological  limitations in this  study for example
1. Aim of the study was to find prognostic factors over long term (however median follow up
was only 17 months). Information on smoking status, concomitant therapy like antibiotics and
drainage (50%) of the patients had abscess) are lacking, as IFX can not be started in patients
with active sepsis. surprisingly none of the patients with abscess and fistula had severe disease
and almost 30% were in clinical remission. how did author assess response  cases with clinical
remission. censoring of data due to poor follow up can give rise to partial observation which
may be incorrect
2. primary outcome could be either death or need for surgery
3. secondary outcome can't be differentiated from primary outcome
4. what was the event for which concordance  index was calculated ..surgery or death.
5. no mention of ethical clearance is mentioned in the study
minor issues
1. writing of paper can be improved in most of sections eg
discussion of results in methodology should not be done (median follow up). flow of writing is
not engaging and receptions can be avoided.
2. it will be inappropriate to form nomogram in such small sample size, retrospective study with
incomplete follow up
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Prognostic Factors for the Efficacy of Infliximab in Patients with Luminal Fistulizing
Crohn’s Disease
Version: 2 Date: 04 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
authors have attempted to address topic with limited data retrospectively.  I would recomend
rejection of the article as there are major limitations in the methodology and analysis of the
available data
Major issues
There are many methodological  limitations in this  study for example
1. Aim of the study was to find prognostic factors over long term (however median follow up
was only 17 months). Information on smoking status, concomitant therapy like antibiotics and
drainage (50%) of the patients had abscess) are lacking, as IFX can not be started in patients
with active sepsis. surprisingly none of the patients with abscess and fistula had severe disease
and almost 30% were in clinical remission. how did author assess response  cases with clinical
remission. censoring of data due to poor follow up can give rise to partial observation which
may be incorrect
2. primary outcome could be either death or need for surgery
3. secondary outcome can't be differentiated from primary outcome
4. what was the event for which concordance  index was calculated ..surgery or death.
5. no mention of ethical clearance is mentioned in the study
minor issues
1. writing of paper can be improved in most of sections eg
discussion of results in methodology should not be done (median follow up). flow of writing is
not engaging and receptions can be avoided.
2. it will be inappropriate to form nomogram in such small sample size, retrospective study with
incomplete follow up
assistant