Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Fecal Calprotectin Predicts Complete Mucosal Healing and Better Correlates with the 
Endoscopic Index of Severity than with the Mayo Endoscopic Subscore in Patients with 
Ulcerative Colitis  
 
Version: 0 Date: 03 Aug 2017  
 
Reviewer: Shu Chen Wei  
 
Reviewer's report:  
This study aimed to evaluate the role of fecal calprotectin (FC) as a noninvasive marker for the 
disease activity of ulcerative colitis (UC) in a Korean cohort.  
Strength: rel ative large sample size in Asia study; direct compare the UCEIS and Mayo 
endoscopic score.  
 
Weakness:  
1. Retrospective study. The interval between FC and CFS, FC and serum data, FC and partial 
Mayo score were varied in individual patients, also varied betw een patients. There were 
several points need to be clarified:  
(1). How often did the patients perform the FC? CFS? blood test? Were these tests routinely 
done for all patients? otherwise, how these data be selected?  
(2). Did all the patients receive comple te CFS? since in the methods portion, they mention the 
sigmoidoscope.  
(3). Why only the first FC included for analysis? but not the one closest to the scope?  
 
2. For the patients/methods:  
(1). Why they exclude those with normal FC (<100)? It would not be too surprised to see the 
mean of the FC in their cohort was as high as 1252.5.  
(2). Would be better to show the FC in Mayo 0 -3, Mayo 3 -6, Mayo 6 -9, Mayo 9 -12 subgroups. 
And, please provide  the information about the patient's severity distribution. Since according to 
their results, the mean Alb was 3.6, mean FC was 1252.5, Mean Mayo endoscopic score was 3, 
we could expect most of their patients were belonged to the moderate -severe groups. Ho wever, 
in these patients, probably we do not need FC monitoring in clinical practice. This is also the 
reason why they could observe the correlation to Alb which was not shown previously.  
 
3. For the results:  
Please confirm that the mean for UCEIS was 4 (i n Table 1), since the mean of Mayo Endoscopic 
score was 3.  
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 re quired 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.  
 
Yes 
 
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 am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the qu ality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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 pu blication 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, 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 websi te 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 name d 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: Fecal Calprotectin Predicts Complete Mucosal Healing and Better Correlates with the 
Endoscopic Index of Severity than with the Mayo Endoscopic Subscore in Patients with 
Ulcerative Colitis  
 
Version: 0 Date: 03 Aug 2017  
 
Reviewer: Shu Chen Wei  
 
Reviewer's report:  
This study aimed to evaluate the role of fecal calprotectin (FC) as a noninvasive marker for the 
disease activity of ulcerative colitis (UC) in a Korean cohort.  
Strength: rel ative large sample size in Asia study; direct compare the UCEIS and Mayo 
endoscopic score.  
 
Weakness:  
1. Retrospective study. The interval between FC and CFS, FC and serum data, FC and partial 
Mayo score were varied in individual patients, also varied betw een patients. There were 
several points need to be clarified:  
(1). How often did the patients perform the FC? CFS? blood test? Were these tests routinely 
done for all patients? otherwise, how these data be selected?  
(2). Did all the patients receive comple te CFS? since in the methods portion, they mention the 
sigmoidoscope.  
(3). Why only the first FC included for analysis? but not the one closest to the scope?  
 
2. For the patients/methods:  
(1). Why they exclude those with normal FC (<100)? It would not be too surprised to see the 
mean of the FC in their cohort was as high as 1252.5.  
(2). Would be better to show the FC in Mayo 0 -3, Mayo 3 -6, Mayo 6 -9, Mayo 9 -12 subgroups. 
And, please provide  the information about the patient's severity distribution. Since according to 
their results, the mean Alb was 3.6, mean FC was 1252.5, Mean Mayo endoscopic score was 3, 
we could expect most of their patients were belonged to the moderate -severe groups. Ho wever, 
in these patients, probably we do not need FC monitoring in clinical practice. This is also the 
reason why they could observe the correlation to Alb which was not shown previously.  
 
3. For the results:  
Please confirm that the mean for UCEIS was 4 (i n Table 1), since the mean of Mayo Endoscopic 
score was 3.  
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 re quired 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.  
 
Yes 
 
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 am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the qu ality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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 pu blication 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, 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 websi te 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 name d 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: Fecal Calprotectin Predicts Complete Mucosal Healing and Better Correlates with the 
Endoscopic Index of Severity than with the Mayo Endoscopic Subscore in Patients with 
Ulcerative Colitis  
 
Version: 0 Date: 03 Aug 2017  
 
Reviewer: Shu Chen Wei  
 
Reviewer's report:  
This study aimed to evaluate the role of fecal calprotectin (FC) as a noninvasive marker for the 
disease activity of ulcerative colitis (UC) in a Korean cohort.  
Strength: rel ative large sample size in Asia study; direct compare the UCEIS and Mayo 
endoscopic score.  
 
Weakness:  
1. Retrospective study. The interval between FC and CFS, FC and serum data, FC and partial 
Mayo score were varied in individual patients, also varied betw een patients. There were 
several points need to be clarified:  
(1). How often did the patients perform the FC? CFS? blood test? Were these tests routinely 
done for all patients? otherwise, how these data be selected?  
(2). Did all the patients receive comple te CFS? since in the methods portion, they mention the 
sigmoidoscope.  
(3). Why only the first FC included for analysis? but not the one closest to the scope?  
 
2. For the patients/methods:  
(1). Why they exclude those with normal FC (<100)? It would not be too surprised to see the 
mean of the FC in their cohort was as high as 1252.5.  
(2). Would be better to show the FC in Mayo 0 -3, Mayo 3 -6, Mayo 6 -9, Mayo 9 -12 subgroups. 
And, please provide  the information about the patient's severity distribution. Since according to 
their results, the mean Alb was 3.6, mean FC was 1252.5, Mean Mayo endoscopic score was 3, 
we could expect most of their patients were belonged to the moderate -severe groups. Ho wever, 
in these patients, probably we do not need FC monitoring in clinical practice. This is also the 
reason why they could observe the correlation to Alb which was not shown previously.  
 
3. For the results:  
Please confirm that the mean for UCEIS was 4 (i n Table 1), since the mean of Mayo Endoscopic 
score was 3.  
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 re quired 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.  
 
Yes 
 
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 am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the qu ality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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 pu blication 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, 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 websi te 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 name d 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