Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  How disease extent can be included in the endoscopic activity index of ulcerative colitis: 
The panMayo Score, a promising scoring system  
 
Version: 0 Date: 30 Sep 2016 
 
Reviewer:  Sara Campos  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
The aim of the article is interesting and the study was well prepared.  
 
However, some aspects must be amended:  
 
(1) english language must be improved  
 
(2) Background  
 
- the aim was to assess eMayo or PanMayo score? Must be clarified.  
 
- there  should be a brief description of riley score in the introduction, as you are using it in 
the next section without any introduction.  
 
- there should be a reference regarding the association of disease extent and the severity of 
UC.  
 
(3) Patients and Methods  
 
- "Inflammatory Constant" definition shall be better clarified. Why should you include it, if 
eMayo score already characterizes the disease severity? It is not well justified...  
 
- time of follow -up shall be included.  
 
(4) Results  
 
- In 3.1. - what is the dif ference between proctosigmoiditis and left -side colitis?  
 
(5) Discussion  
 
- a reference regarding the sentence "endoscopic score indicate the severity of 
inflammation, ..., for the optimisation of the therapy" must be added.  
 
- line 37, "it should be noted that disease location..." and extension too.  
 
- most importantly, a real advantage of panmayo score versus the current scores (mayo 
score and uceis) must be better developed. From what it is exposed, it is not perceptible. 
As a matte r of fact, UCEIS and Mayo score already assess disease activity with less 
parameters than panMayo score... This is a major point to be addressed by the authors 
before considering this paper for publication.  
 
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.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
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 you 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 recommend additional statistical review  
 
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 organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this m anuscript, 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, fees, 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 agree 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 included in my named report can be include d 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:  How disease extent can be included in the endoscopic activity index of ulcerative colitis: 
The panMayo Score, a promising scoring system  
 
Version: 0 Date: 30 Sep 2016 
 
Reviewer:  Sara Campos  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
The aim of the article is interesting and the study was well prepared.  
 
However, some aspects must be amended:  
 
(1) english language must be improved  
 
(2) Background  
 
- the aim was to assess eMayo or PanMayo score? Must be clarified.  
 
- there  should be a brief description of riley score in the introduction, as you are using it in 
the next section without any introduction.  
 
- there should be a reference regarding the association of disease extent and the severity of 
UC.  
 
(3) Patients and Methods  
 
- "Inflammatory Constant" definition shall be better clarified. Why should you include it, if 
eMayo score already characterizes the disease severity? It is not well justified...  
 
- time of follow -up shall be included.  
 
(4) Results  
 
- In 3.1. - what is the dif ference between proctosigmoiditis and left -side colitis?  
 
(5) Discussion  
 
- a reference regarding the sentence "endoscopic score indicate the severity of 
inflammation, ..., for the optimisation of the therapy" must be added.  
 
- line 37, "it should be noted that disease location..." and extension too.  
 
- most importantly, a real advantage of panmayo score versus the current scores (mayo 
score and uceis) must be better developed. From what it is exposed, it is not perceptible. 
As a matte r of fact, UCEIS and Mayo score already assess disease activity with less 
parameters than panMayo score... This is a major point to be addressed by the authors 
before considering this paper for publication.  
 
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.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
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 you 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 recommend additional statistical review  
 
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 organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this m anuscript, 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, fees, 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 agree 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 included in my named report can be include d 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:  How disease extent can be included in the endoscopic activity index of ulcerative colitis: 
The panMayo Score, a promising scoring system  
 
Version: 0 Date: 30 Sep 2016 
 
Reviewer:  Sara Campos  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
The aim of the article is interesting and the study was well prepared.  
 
However, some aspects must be amended:  
 
(1) english language must be improved  
 
(2) Background  
 
- the aim was to assess eMayo or PanMayo score? Must be clarified.  
 
- there  should be a brief description of riley score in the introduction, as you are using it in 
the next section without any introduction.  
 
- there should be a reference regarding the association of disease extent and the severity of 
UC.  
 
(3) Patients and Methods  
 
- "Inflammatory Constant" definition shall be better clarified. Why should you include it, if 
eMayo score already characterizes the disease severity? It is not well justified...  
 
- time of follow -up shall be included.  
 
(4) Results  
 
- In 3.1. - what is the dif ference between proctosigmoiditis and left -side colitis?  
 
(5) Discussion  
 
- a reference regarding the sentence "endoscopic score indicate the severity of 
inflammation, ..., for the optimisation of the therapy" must be added.  
 
- line 37, "it should be noted that disease location..." and extension too.  
 
- most importantly, a real advantage of panmayo score versus the current scores (mayo 
score and uceis) must be better developed. From what it is exposed, it is not perceptible. 
As a matte r of fact, UCEIS and Mayo score already assess disease activity with less 
parameters than panMayo score... This is a major point to be addressed by the authors 
before considering this paper for publication.  
 
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.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
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 you 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 recommend additional statistical review  
 
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 organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this m anuscript, 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, fees, 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 agree 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 included in my named report can be include d as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published . 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant