Title: Gut Microbiota Analyses of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases from a representative Saudi
Population
Version: 2 Date: 05 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor,
I feel sorry to reject a paper but I think the authors have to work on it. I provided useful feedback
for the authors. The paper lacks important methodological concepts and cannot be accepted due
to lots of bias and confounders. Consequently, It is not internally valid unfortunately.
Abstract
Introduction: please add abbreviations to Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis (UC and CD ) in the
first sentence so that you can use it later. Please correct grammar mistake in the introduction
( mediated disorders of the gastrointestinal tract are major contributors to the overarching
Inflammatory bowel diseases)
Results ( please add p values and confidence intervals to each result described).
Methods:
The first sentence should be in the introduction ( the aim of this study). Please explain the type
of study used more. Maybe reduce the introduction if you stuck with word counts.
Main manuscript
Line 97: I would use the term patients with IBD instead of IBD subjects
Line 98 add ‘at’ after internal medicine clinics instead of comma
Line 100: how does Crohns diagnosis based on endoscopy ? do you mean gastroscopy only
please clarify. Also please use ICD codes for diagnosis and add them to the method section.
Inclusion: how long patients were diagnosed with the disease? What treatment where they on?
It is important to know if they were on steroids or other immunosuppressants.
Regarding exclusion criteria: how about patients with recent infections such as gastroenteritis
or c. diff why not accounted for ? how about patients with active IBD  ?
CRP is not enough to determine activity. Stool fecal calprotectin plus a clinical score should be
used at least to exclude or control for those with active disease >
Sample size calculation was not explained.
Healthy control were not defined ? how the authors knew that they were “healthy” ?
Table 1 is lacking so many important details ( subtype of UC and CD), medications used, clinical
scores, fecal calprotectin results, medications used.
STROBE guidelines also not followed
Title: Gut Microbiota Analyses of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases from a representative Saudi
Population
Version: 2 Date: 05 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor,
I feel sorry to reject a paper but I think the authors have to work on it. I provided useful feedback
for the authors. The paper lacks important methodological concepts and cannot be accepted due
to lots of bias and confounders. Consequently, It is not internally valid unfortunately.
Abstract
Introduction: please add abbreviations to Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis (UC and CD ) in the
first sentence so that you can use it later. Please correct grammar mistake in the introduction
( mediated disorders of the gastrointestinal tract are major contributors to the overarching
Inflammatory bowel diseases)
Results ( please add p values and confidence intervals to each result described).
Methods:
The first sentence should be in the introduction ( the aim of this study). Please explain the type
of study used more. Maybe reduce the introduction if you stuck with word counts.
Main manuscript
Line 97: I would use the term patients with IBD instead of IBD subjects
Line 98 add ‘at’ after internal medicine clinics instead of comma
Line 100: how does Crohns diagnosis based on endoscopy ? do you mean gastroscopy only
please clarify. Also please use ICD codes for diagnosis and add them to the method section.
Inclusion: how long patients were diagnosed with the disease? What treatment where they on?
It is important to know if they were on steroids or other immunosuppressants.
Regarding exclusion criteria: how about patients with recent infections such as gastroenteritis
or c. diff why not accounted for ? how about patients with active IBD  ?
CRP is not enough to determine activity. Stool fecal calprotectin plus a clinical score should be
used at least to exclude or control for those with active disease >
Sample size calculation was not explained.
Healthy control were not defined ? how the authors knew that they were “healthy” ?
Table 1 is lacking so many important details ( subtype of UC and CD), medications used, clinical
scores, fecal calprotectin results, medications used.
STROBE guidelines also not followed
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Gut Microbiota Analyses of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases from a representative Saudi
Population
Version: 2 Date: 05 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor,
I feel sorry to reject a paper but I think the authors have to work on it. I provided useful feedback
for the authors. The paper lacks important methodological concepts and cannot be accepted due
to lots of bias and confounders. Consequently, It is not internally valid unfortunately.
Abstract
Introduction: please add abbreviations to Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis (UC and CD ) in the
first sentence so that you can use it later. Please correct grammar mistake in the introduction
( mediated disorders of the gastrointestinal tract are major contributors to the overarching
Inflammatory bowel diseases)
Results ( please add p values and confidence intervals to each result described).
Methods:
The first sentence should be in the introduction ( the aim of this study). Please explain the type
of study used more. Maybe reduce the introduction if you stuck with word counts.
Main manuscript
Line 97: I would use the term patients with IBD instead of IBD subjects
Line 98 add ‘at’ after internal medicine clinics instead of comma
Line 100: how does Crohns diagnosis based on endoscopy ? do you mean gastroscopy only
please clarify. Also please use ICD codes for diagnosis and add them to the method section.
Inclusion: how long patients were diagnosed with the disease? What treatment where they on?
It is important to know if they were on steroids or other immunosuppressants.
Regarding exclusion criteria: how about patients with recent infections such as gastroenteritis
or c. diff why not accounted for ? how about patients with active IBD  ?
CRP is not enough to determine activity. Stool fecal calprotectin plus a clinical score should be
used at least to exclude or control for those with active disease >
Sample size calculation was not explained.
Healthy control were not defined ? how the authors knew that they were “healthy” ?
Table 1 is lacking so many important details ( subtype of UC and CD), medications used, clinical
scores, fecal calprotectin results, medications used.
STROBE guidelines also not followed
assistant