Title: Development and Validation of a New Algorithm Model for Differential Diagnosis
Between Crohn's Disease and Intestinal Tuberculosis: A Combination of Laboratory, Imaging
and Endoscopic Characteristics
Version: 1 Date: 16 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for inviting me to review the manuscript "Development and Validation of a
New Algorithm Model for Differential Diagnosis Between Crohn's Disease and Intestinal
Tuberculosis: A Combination of Laboratory, Imaging, and Endoscopic Characteristics."
This issue is always a problem for a physician in clinical practice to differentiate between them.
However, the previous and recent study was already published with a more significant number
of patients. I would like to discuss some of my points of view and comment as follows.
1. The author should beware of starting the diagnostic algorithm due to the IGRA due to its
result depend on the cut-off level. Unfortunately, it was frequently showed the indeterminate
consequence, which the purposing algorithm might not work.
2. The study did not provide the ROC for the sensitivity analysis
3. The mentioned CART is challenging to follow, but it relatively seems to show the probability
of ITB and CD.
4. For the validation of the diagnostic test, the authors should beware that the validating group
has the same background and same diagnosis method (internal validation). The authors should
underline this limitation.
5. As for the ITB diagnosis, the author should provide the numbers of a patient who responded
to ATT. How many percent of the patient had disappeared from ulcerations on endoscopic
examination, and how long the patients were in the follow-up.
Abstract
The conclusion should provide the essential or significant findings of the study. Please consider
revising the conclusion part.
Introduction
This study should review the background of previously published reports in differentiation
between ITB and CD. What are the characteristic endoscopy, labs, and imaging for
differentiation of ITB and CD
Method
The author should provide the method and information of T-SPOT.
Results
The author should provide specific data of what is group 1 and group 2. (It was confusing)
In validated patients who misdiagnose between ITB and CD, the authors should provide these
patients' data.
Table
Columns group 1 and group 2 should be labeled as ITB or CD.
Title: Development and Validation of a New Algorithm Model for Differential Diagnosis
Between Crohn's Disease and Intestinal Tuberculosis: A Combination of Laboratory, Imaging
and Endoscopic Characteristics
Version: 1 Date: 16 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for inviting me to review the manuscript "Development and Validation of a
New Algorithm Model for Differential Diagnosis Between Crohn's Disease and Intestinal
Tuberculosis: A Combination of Laboratory, Imaging, and Endoscopic Characteristics."
This issue is always a problem for a physician in clinical practice to differentiate between them.
However, the previous and recent study was already published with a more significant number
of patients. I would like to discuss some of my points of view and comment as follows.
1. The author should beware of starting the diagnostic algorithm due to the IGRA due to its
result depend on the cut-off level. Unfortunately, it was frequently showed the indeterminate
consequence, which the purposing algorithm might not work.
2. The study did not provide the ROC for the sensitivity analysis
3. The mentioned CART is challenging to follow, but it relatively seems to show the probability
of ITB and CD.
4. For the validation of the diagnostic test, the authors should beware that the validating group
has the same background and same diagnosis method (internal validation). The authors should
underline this limitation.
5. As for the ITB diagnosis, the author should provide the numbers of a patient who responded
to ATT. How many percent of the patient had disappeared from ulcerations on endoscopic
examination, and how long the patients were in the follow-up.
Abstract
The conclusion should provide the essential or significant findings of the study. Please consider
revising the conclusion part.
Introduction
This study should review the background of previously published reports in differentiation
between ITB and CD. What are the characteristic endoscopy, labs, and imaging for
differentiation of ITB and CD
Method
The author should provide the method and information of T-SPOT.
Results
The author should provide specific data of what is group 1 and group 2. (It was confusing)
In validated patients who misdiagnose between ITB and CD, the authors should provide these
patients' data.
Table
Columns group 1 and group 2 should be labeled as ITB or CD.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Development and Validation of a New Algorithm Model for Differential Diagnosis
Between Crohn's Disease and Intestinal Tuberculosis: A Combination of Laboratory, Imaging
and Endoscopic Characteristics
Version: 1 Date: 16 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for inviting me to review the manuscript "Development and Validation of a
New Algorithm Model for Differential Diagnosis Between Crohn's Disease and Intestinal
Tuberculosis: A Combination of Laboratory, Imaging, and Endoscopic Characteristics."
This issue is always a problem for a physician in clinical practice to differentiate between them.
However, the previous and recent study was already published with a more significant number
of patients. I would like to discuss some of my points of view and comment as follows.
1. The author should beware of starting the diagnostic algorithm due to the IGRA due to its
result depend on the cut-off level. Unfortunately, it was frequently showed the indeterminate
consequence, which the purposing algorithm might not work.
2. The study did not provide the ROC for the sensitivity analysis
3. The mentioned CART is challenging to follow, but it relatively seems to show the probability
of ITB and CD.
4. For the validation of the diagnostic test, the authors should beware that the validating group
has the same background and same diagnosis method (internal validation). The authors should
underline this limitation.
5. As for the ITB diagnosis, the author should provide the numbers of a patient who responded
to ATT. How many percent of the patient had disappeared from ulcerations on endoscopic
examination, and how long the patients were in the follow-up.
Abstract
The conclusion should provide the essential or significant findings of the study. Please consider
revising the conclusion part.
Introduction
This study should review the background of previously published reports in differentiation
between ITB and CD. What are the characteristic endoscopy, labs, and imaging for
differentiation of ITB and CD
Method
The author should provide the method and information of T-SPOT.
Results
The author should provide specific data of what is group 1 and group 2. (It was confusing)
In validated patients who misdiagnose between ITB and CD, the authors should provide these
patients' data.
Table
Columns group 1 and group 2 should be labeled as ITB or CD.
assistant