Reviewer's report 
 Factors associated with disease evolution in Greek patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Title: 
 1  25 April 2006 Version: Date: 
 Jacques Cosnes Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
An interesting study of a cohort of Cretan patietns with IBD. The results are those expected, showing that 
Cretan patietns do not differ from other ethnic groups 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
No ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
1Â°page 5: the definition of time of diagnosis is important considering the actuarial calculations from this 
point. In my opinion it should not be "the 1st occasion when the diagnostic criteria were fulfilled" but "the 1st 
demonstration of any macroscopic abnormality of the GI tract". For instance a patient may have an 
undiagnosed ileitis for years, and the diagnosis of CD will be obtained only after surgery. Actually, his 
disease started when ileitis was demonstrated. 
2Â°page 10: change of disease behavior cannot be used as a possible predictor of surgery, 1 because by definition such a criterion cannot be collected at diagnosis and 2 because occurence of a stricture or a 
perforation leads usually per se to surgery 
3Â° page 15: the term "interchangeable penetrating phenotype" is not clear to me 4Â°some statistical points: do not indicate the level of significance in the abstract. P values < 0.001 should be indicated as "P<0.001", hazard ratios as "3.05" or "2.40" (2 decimals). Indicate the name of the system 
used for calculations. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have no competing interests 
Reviewer's report 
 Factors associated with disease evolution in Greek patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Title: 
 1  25 April 2006 Version: Date: 
 Jacques Cosnes Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
An interesting study of a cohort of Cretan patietns with IBD. The results are those expected, showing that 
Cretan patietns do not differ from other ethnic groups 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
No ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
1Â°page 5: the definition of time of diagnosis is important considering the actuarial calculations from this 
point. In my opinion it should not be "the 1st occasion when the diagnostic criteria were fulfilled" but "the 1st 
demonstration of any macroscopic abnormality of the GI tract". For instance a patient may have an 
undiagnosed ileitis for years, and the diagnosis of CD will be obtained only after surgery. Actually, his 
disease started when ileitis was demonstrated. 
2Â°page 10: change of disease behavior cannot be used as a possible predictor of surgery, 1 because by definition such a criterion cannot be collected at diagnosis and 2 because occurence of a stricture or a 
perforation leads usually per se to surgery 
3Â° page 15: the term "interchangeable penetrating phenotype" is not clear to me 4Â°some statistical points: do not indicate the level of significance in the abstract. P values < 0.001 should be indicated as "P<0.001", hazard ratios as "3.05" or "2.40" (2 decimals). Indicate the name of the system 
used for calculations. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have no competing interests 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Factors associated with disease evolution in Greek patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Title: 
 1  25 April 2006 Version: Date: 
 Jacques Cosnes Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
An interesting study of a cohort of Cretan patietns with IBD. The results are those expected, showing that 
Cretan patietns do not differ from other ethnic groups 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
No ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
1Â°page 5: the definition of time of diagnosis is important considering the actuarial calculations from this 
point. In my opinion it should not be "the 1st occasion when the diagnostic criteria were fulfilled" but "the 1st 
demonstration of any macroscopic abnormality of the GI tract". For instance a patient may have an 
undiagnosed ileitis for years, and the diagnosis of CD will be obtained only after surgery. Actually, his 
disease started when ileitis was demonstrated. 
2Â°page 10: change of disease behavior cannot be used as a possible predictor of surgery, 1 because by definition such a criterion cannot be collected at diagnosis and 2 because occurence of a stricture or a 
perforation leads usually per se to surgery 
3Â° page 15: the term "interchangeable penetrating phenotype" is not clear to me 4Â°some statistical points: do not indicate the level of significance in the abstract. P values < 0.001 should be indicated as "P<0.001", hazard ratios as "3.05" or "2.40" (2 decimals). Indicate the name of the system 
used for calculations. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have no competing interests 
assistant