Title: Extent of disease affects the usefulness of fecal biomarkers in ulcerative colitis
Version: 2 Date: 25 Jan 2021
Reviewer:  Paul Rufo
Reviewer's report:
1.  The manuscript could benefit from English language editing.
2.  There were 162 studies performed in 133 patients.  It may have better to limit the analysis
to one (the first) study for each patient.
3.  A lichtiger score was not obtained universally (125 or 162).  As such, there could be a selection
bias in which only patients with mild or severe disease were provided with scores.
4. The experimental criteria for how the predictability of endoscopic improvement was
determined should be be more fully described.  Which patients and what treatments were
instituted to assess disease response? Were the same patients studies twice?
5.  The cut-off values for FC in Table 5 are higher than those typically reported (either 150 or
250).
Title: Extent of disease affects the usefulness of fecal biomarkers in ulcerative colitis
Version: 2 Date: 25 Jan 2021
Reviewer:  Paul Rufo
Reviewer's report:
1.  The manuscript could benefit from English language editing.
2.  There were 162 studies performed in 133 patients.  It may have better to limit the analysis
to one (the first) study for each patient.
3.  A lichtiger score was not obtained universally (125 or 162).  As such, there could be a selection
bias in which only patients with mild or severe disease were provided with scores.
4. The experimental criteria for how the predictability of endoscopic improvement was
determined should be be more fully described.  Which patients and what treatments were
instituted to assess disease response? Were the same patients studies twice?
5.  The cut-off values for FC in Table 5 are higher than those typically reported (either 150 or
250).
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Extent of disease affects the usefulness of fecal biomarkers in ulcerative colitis
Version: 2 Date: 25 Jan 2021
Reviewer:  Paul Rufo
Reviewer's report:
1.  The manuscript could benefit from English language editing.
2.  There were 162 studies performed in 133 patients.  It may have better to limit the analysis
to one (the first) study for each patient.
3.  A lichtiger score was not obtained universally (125 or 162).  As such, there could be a selection
bias in which only patients with mild or severe disease were provided with scores.
4. The experimental criteria for how the predictability of endoscopic improvement was
determined should be be more fully described.  Which patients and what treatments were
instituted to assess disease response? Were the same patients studies twice?
5.  The cut-off values for FC in Table 5 are higher than those typically reported (either 150 or
250).
assistant