Reviewer's report
Title:A retrospective study showing Maintenance treatment options for paediatric
CD in the first year following diagnosis after induction of remission with EEN:
supplemental enteral nutrition is better than nothing!
Version:2Date:10 January 2014
Reviewer: Kristina Norman
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting retrospective report on the 'real-life' situation in children with
CD after EEN.
I only have some minor remarks (Minor Essential Revisions):
1) are the groups (MEN+azathioprine; MEN only, azathioprine only, nothing)
comparable in age, sex or disease location or nutritional status? in order to
evaluate the findings this would be important to know. Do the authors have any
data on why parents/children chose to continue with the respective treatment?
2) how was intake evaluated retrospectively? did parents/children keep diaries,
or was it merely estimated at follow up visits?
3) the discussion is somewhat lengthy and appears slighlty repetitive.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:A retrospective study showing Maintenance treatment options for paediatric
CD in the first year following diagnosis after induction of remission with EEN:
supplemental enteral nutrition is better than nothing!
Version:2Date:10 January 2014
Reviewer: Kristina Norman
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting retrospective report on the 'real-life' situation in children with
CD after EEN.
I only have some minor remarks (Minor Essential Revisions):
1) are the groups (MEN+azathioprine; MEN only, azathioprine only, nothing)
comparable in age, sex or disease location or nutritional status? in order to
evaluate the findings this would be important to know. Do the authors have any
data on why parents/children chose to continue with the respective treatment?
2) how was intake evaluated retrospectively? did parents/children keep diaries,
or was it merely estimated at follow up visits?
3) the discussion is somewhat lengthy and appears slighlty repetitive.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:A retrospective study showing Maintenance treatment options for paediatric
CD in the first year following diagnosis after induction of remission with EEN:
supplemental enteral nutrition is better than nothing!
Version:2Date:10 January 2014
Reviewer: Kristina Norman
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting retrospective report on the 'real-life' situation in children with
CD after EEN.
I only have some minor remarks (Minor Essential Revisions):
1) are the groups (MEN+azathioprine; MEN only, azathioprine only, nothing)
comparable in age, sex or disease location or nutritional status? in order to
evaluate the findings this would be important to know. Do the authors have any
data on why parents/children chose to continue with the respective treatment?
2) how was intake evaluated retrospectively? did parents/children keep diaries,
or was it merely estimated at follow up visits?
3) the discussion is somewhat lengthy and appears slighlty repetitive.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant