Reviewer ’s report  
Title:  Fecal calprotectin level correlated with both endoscopic severity and disease extent in 
ulcerative colitis  
 
Version:  0 Date:  26 Nov 2015  
 
Reviewer:  Oliver  Bachmann  
 
Reviewer's report:  
The major shortcoming of this study is the fact that it basically answers one question, which is 
the correlation of FC with the M -MES, and which has been answered and published in a 
previous paper by Lobatòn et al. Additional validation of the mentioned end oscopic score is 
certainly important, but the manuscript could be strengthened by providing additional data. What 
about other endoscopic scores (see discussion)? One very interesting issue is histologic healing; 
were samples taken during the endoscopies?  
 
P6L19: Studies on vedolizumab should be included  
P6L38: Citation needed for the mentioned recommendation  
P6L51: The studies dating from the 90s regarding FC stability are considered obsolete by most 
experts, 3 -4 days is more realistic  
P8L58: It should be mentioned how and when infectious complications were excluded  
P9L15: Given the fact that UC changes its extent very frequently and this is a cross -sectional 
study including full colonoscopy, it seems counter -intuitive to use historic endoscopic 
findings to  determine the extent  
P10L6: Why were patients excluded when the cecum was not reached? Is colonoscopy 
reaching the margin of inflammation not sufficient? Explanation missing  
P10L15: Does this mean the exam was videotaped and the video was then evaluated b y 
additional experts? Please clarify  
P15L32: This should not be a technical problem, FC can also be determined in liquid stools?  
Table1: 76% of patients were in remission, why were they scheduled for an endoscopy? Please 
provide a justification for the per formed exams, since this is an observational study  
Table1: It is not clear how many patients had topical therapy, which could be interesting for the 
interpretation of the FC values given the possibility of relative rectal sparing  
 
Are the methods appropriate  and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments 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.  
Yes 
Are the conclusions drawn adeq uately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
Yes 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended , please specify 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:  
Acceptable  
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complet e 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 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 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 t he 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 understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for 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 included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be pu blished.  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
Title:  Fecal calprotectin level correlated with both endoscopic severity and disease extent in 
ulcerative colitis  
 
Version:  0 Date:  26 Nov 2015  
 
Reviewer:  Oliver  Bachmann  
 
Reviewer's report:  
The major shortcoming of this study is the fact that it basically answers one question, which is 
the correlation of FC with the M -MES, and which has been answered and published in a 
previous paper by Lobatòn et al. Additional validation of the mentioned end oscopic score is 
certainly important, but the manuscript could be strengthened by providing additional data. What 
about other endoscopic scores (see discussion)? One very interesting issue is histologic healing; 
were samples taken during the endoscopies?  
 
P6L19: Studies on vedolizumab should be included  
P6L38: Citation needed for the mentioned recommendation  
P6L51: The studies dating from the 90s regarding FC stability are considered obsolete by most 
experts, 3 -4 days is more realistic  
P8L58: It should be mentioned how and when infectious complications were excluded  
P9L15: Given the fact that UC changes its extent very frequently and this is a cross -sectional 
study including full colonoscopy, it seems counter -intuitive to use historic endoscopic 
findings to  determine the extent  
P10L6: Why were patients excluded when the cecum was not reached? Is colonoscopy 
reaching the margin of inflammation not sufficient? Explanation missing  
P10L15: Does this mean the exam was videotaped and the video was then evaluated b y 
additional experts? Please clarify  
P15L32: This should not be a technical problem, FC can also be determined in liquid stools?  
Table1: 76% of patients were in remission, why were they scheduled for an endoscopy? Please 
provide a justification for the per formed exams, since this is an observational study  
Table1: It is not clear how many patients had topical therapy, which could be interesting for the 
interpretation of the FC values given the possibility of relative rectal sparing  
 
Are the methods appropriate  and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments 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.  
Yes 
Are the conclusions drawn adeq uately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
Yes 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended , please specify 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:  
Acceptable  
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complet e 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 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 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 t he 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 understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for 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 included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be pu blished.  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
Title:  Fecal calprotectin level correlated with both endoscopic severity and disease extent in 
ulcerative colitis  
 
Version:  0 Date:  26 Nov 2015  
 
Reviewer:  Oliver  Bachmann  
 
Reviewer's report:  
The major shortcoming of this study is the fact that it basically answers one question, which is 
the correlation of FC with the M -MES, and which has been answered and published in a 
previous paper by Lobatòn et al. Additional validation of the mentioned end oscopic score is 
certainly important, but the manuscript could be strengthened by providing additional data. What 
about other endoscopic scores (see discussion)? One very interesting issue is histologic healing; 
were samples taken during the endoscopies?  
 
P6L19: Studies on vedolizumab should be included  
P6L38: Citation needed for the mentioned recommendation  
P6L51: The studies dating from the 90s regarding FC stability are considered obsolete by most 
experts, 3 -4 days is more realistic  
P8L58: It should be mentioned how and when infectious complications were excluded  
P9L15: Given the fact that UC changes its extent very frequently and this is a cross -sectional 
study including full colonoscopy, it seems counter -intuitive to use historic endoscopic 
findings to  determine the extent  
P10L6: Why were patients excluded when the cecum was not reached? Is colonoscopy 
reaching the margin of inflammation not sufficient? Explanation missing  
P10L15: Does this mean the exam was videotaped and the video was then evaluated b y 
additional experts? Please clarify  
P15L32: This should not be a technical problem, FC can also be determined in liquid stools?  
Table1: 76% of patients were in remission, why were they scheduled for an endoscopy? Please 
provide a justification for the per formed exams, since this is an observational study  
Table1: It is not clear how many patients had topical therapy, which could be interesting for the 
interpretation of the FC values given the possibility of relative rectal sparing  
 
Are the methods appropriate  and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments 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.  
Yes 
Are the conclusions drawn adeq uately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
Yes 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended , please specify 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:  
Acceptable  
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complet e 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 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 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 t he 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 understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for 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 included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be pu blished.  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant