Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Autoantibody Detection is Not Recommende d for Chronic Pancreatitis: A Cross -sectional 
Study of 557 Patients  
 
Version: 0 Date: 28 Oct 2018 
 
Reviewer:  Bipadabhanjan  Mallick  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
MAJOR  
 
1. Why this auto antibody was done in these patients as diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis is 
imaging based. If it was done suspecting AIP then what are the frequency of auto 
antibody most frequently seen in AIP patients like ANA, rheumatoid factor, anti 
lactoferrin, anti carbonic anhydrase ?  
 
2. Four antibody are less frequently associated with study group compared to healthy 
control, are they protective against development of CP ? No mention in discussion  
 
3. Uniformity of detection of antibody is not there like some by ELISA and some by IIF?  
 
4. When there is definite diagnosis of etiology of CP, why these antibody were done in 
alcohol etiology of CP. Is it done for prognostication, no mention in discussion.  
 
5. Discussion should be focused association of auto antibody with CP. No need of discussing 
about antibody or its association with other etiologies.  
 
6. What is the explanation for DM in first/second/third degree relatives as protective factor 
for beta 2 -GPI and DM, CBD stricture as risk?  
 
 
MINOR  
 
1. Few spelli ng mistakes need to be corrected  
 
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.  
 
No 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would yo u 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 am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, 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 organisati on that 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, f ees, 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 the 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 ag ree 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 inc luded in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Autoantibody Detection is Not Recommende d for Chronic Pancreatitis: A Cross -sectional 
Study of 557 Patients  
 
Version: 0 Date: 28 Oct 2018 
 
Reviewer:  Bipadabhanjan  Mallick  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
MAJOR  
 
1. Why this auto antibody was done in these patients as diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis is 
imaging based. If it was done suspecting AIP then what are the frequency of auto 
antibody most frequently seen in AIP patients like ANA, rheumatoid factor, anti 
lactoferrin, anti carbonic anhydrase ?  
 
2. Four antibody are less frequently associated with study group compared to healthy 
control, are they protective against development of CP ? No mention in discussion  
 
3. Uniformity of detection of antibody is not there like some by ELISA and some by IIF?  
 
4. When there is definite diagnosis of etiology of CP, why these antibody were done in 
alcohol etiology of CP. Is it done for prognostication, no mention in discussion.  
 
5. Discussion should be focused association of auto antibody with CP. No need of discussing 
about antibody or its association with other etiologies.  
 
6. What is the explanation for DM in first/second/third degree relatives as protective factor 
for beta 2 -GPI and DM, CBD stricture as risk?  
 
 
MINOR  
 
1. Few spelli ng mistakes need to be corrected  
 
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.  
 
No 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would yo u 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 am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, 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 organisati on that 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, f ees, 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 the 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 ag ree 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 inc luded in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Autoantibody Detection is Not Recommende d for Chronic Pancreatitis: A Cross -sectional 
Study of 557 Patients  
 
Version: 0 Date: 28 Oct 2018 
 
Reviewer:  Bipadabhanjan  Mallick  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
MAJOR  
 
1. Why this auto antibody was done in these patients as diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis is 
imaging based. If it was done suspecting AIP then what are the frequency of auto 
antibody most frequently seen in AIP patients like ANA, rheumatoid factor, anti 
lactoferrin, anti carbonic anhydrase ?  
 
2. Four antibody are less frequently associated with study group compared to healthy 
control, are they protective against development of CP ? No mention in discussion  
 
3. Uniformity of detection of antibody is not there like some by ELISA and some by IIF?  
 
4. When there is definite diagnosis of etiology of CP, why these antibody were done in 
alcohol etiology of CP. Is it done for prognostication, no mention in discussion.  
 
5. Discussion should be focused association of auto antibody with CP. No need of discussing 
about antibody or its association with other etiologies.  
 
6. What is the explanation for DM in first/second/third degree relatives as protective factor 
for beta 2 -GPI and DM, CBD stricture as risk?  
 
 
MINOR  
 
1. Few spelli ng mistakes need to be corrected  
 
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.  
 
No 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would yo u 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 am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, 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 organisati on that 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, f ees, 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 the 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 ag ree 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 inc luded in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant