Title: Efficacy of washed microbiota transplantation for therapeutic targets of refractory
functional constipation and the influencing factors: A single-center, retrospective, 24-week
follow-up study
Version: 1 Date: 02 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
The commonly used disease score may be suitable for overall evaluation of efficacy one
treatment/therapy, but some specific benefits are also important for improving the quality of
life of patients. This study evaluates the value of WMT in treating FC independently from
the concept of targets, challenging the traditional total score evaluation method, and better
demonstrating the value of WMT for patients. The starting point and thinking of this study are
very innovative, providing a different perspective and large sample of evidence from previous
studies.
The minor comments as below:
1. Why did you aim to use this evaluation concept? What is the strength of the “TRAGET”
evaluation? These points should be clearly stated in the introduction for not causing confusion.
The core novelty of the study should be shown properly. Previous reports have indicated the
potential of role of FMT on FC, the limitations of those studies or the limitation of the evaluation
might be the logistic of your study on TARGETS.
2. What is WMT? “Washed microbiota transplantation (WMT) is a modification of FMT” in
introduction is vague. Can you have the clear definition of WMT and the release by consensus?
That would be better for readers to understand the different methods of FMT.
3. In methods: how to perform TET in colon?
4. In methods: the delivered microiota in fresh or frozen?
5. line 378-379: “the efficacy of WMT on other four therapeutic targets remain largely
unknown”. List the terms of the other four targets or show them in (   ).
6. Clostridium difficile has been replaced by Clostridioides difficile. Correct them in the text.
7. Line 432-433: “However, there is no consensus on the optimal WMT delivery route in clinical
practice at present”. This sentence is non-sense and improper. I suggest to state that there is no
reported difference of efficacy using the different delivery way via mid-gut tube and colonic
TET for FC. This your logistic why did you choose both ways.
8. Check the TABLE 1 for confirming the notes.
9. Table 2B and 2C, try to test “Course of WMT” by other analysis, instead of mean ± standard
deviation? Also check other items.
10. Table 4: is the * at right place?
Title: Efficacy of washed microbiota transplantation for therapeutic targets of refractory
functional constipation and the influencing factors: A single-center, retrospective, 24-week
follow-up study
Version: 1 Date: 02 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
The commonly used disease score may be suitable for overall evaluation of efficacy one
treatment/therapy, but some specific benefits are also important for improving the quality of
life of patients. This study evaluates the value of WMT in treating FC independently from
the concept of targets, challenging the traditional total score evaluation method, and better
demonstrating the value of WMT for patients. The starting point and thinking of this study are
very innovative, providing a different perspective and large sample of evidence from previous
studies.
The minor comments as below:
1. Why did you aim to use this evaluation concept? What is the strength of the “TRAGET”
evaluation? These points should be clearly stated in the introduction for not causing confusion.
The core novelty of the study should be shown properly. Previous reports have indicated the
potential of role of FMT on FC, the limitations of those studies or the limitation of the evaluation
might be the logistic of your study on TARGETS.
2. What is WMT? “Washed microbiota transplantation (WMT) is a modification of FMT” in
introduction is vague. Can you have the clear definition of WMT and the release by consensus?
That would be better for readers to understand the different methods of FMT.
3. In methods: how to perform TET in colon?
4. In methods: the delivered microiota in fresh or frozen?
5. line 378-379: “the efficacy of WMT on other four therapeutic targets remain largely
unknown”. List the terms of the other four targets or show them in (   ).
6. Clostridium difficile has been replaced by Clostridioides difficile. Correct them in the text.
7. Line 432-433: “However, there is no consensus on the optimal WMT delivery route in clinical
practice at present”. This sentence is non-sense and improper. I suggest to state that there is no
reported difference of efficacy using the different delivery way via mid-gut tube and colonic
TET for FC. This your logistic why did you choose both ways.
8. Check the TABLE 1 for confirming the notes.
9. Table 2B and 2C, try to test “Course of WMT” by other analysis, instead of mean ± standard
deviation? Also check other items.
10. Table 4: is the * at right place?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Efficacy of washed microbiota transplantation for therapeutic targets of refractory
functional constipation and the influencing factors: A single-center, retrospective, 24-week
follow-up study
Version: 1 Date: 02 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
The commonly used disease score may be suitable for overall evaluation of efficacy one
treatment/therapy, but some specific benefits are also important for improving the quality of
life of patients. This study evaluates the value of WMT in treating FC independently from
the concept of targets, challenging the traditional total score evaluation method, and better
demonstrating the value of WMT for patients. The starting point and thinking of this study are
very innovative, providing a different perspective and large sample of evidence from previous
studies.
The minor comments as below:
1. Why did you aim to use this evaluation concept? What is the strength of the “TRAGET”
evaluation? These points should be clearly stated in the introduction for not causing confusion.
The core novelty of the study should be shown properly. Previous reports have indicated the
potential of role of FMT on FC, the limitations of those studies or the limitation of the evaluation
might be the logistic of your study on TARGETS.
2. What is WMT? “Washed microbiota transplantation (WMT) is a modification of FMT” in
introduction is vague. Can you have the clear definition of WMT and the release by consensus?
That would be better for readers to understand the different methods of FMT.
3. In methods: how to perform TET in colon?
4. In methods: the delivered microiota in fresh or frozen?
5. line 378-379: “the efficacy of WMT on other four therapeutic targets remain largely
unknown”. List the terms of the other four targets or show them in (   ).
6. Clostridium difficile has been replaced by Clostridioides difficile. Correct them in the text.
7. Line 432-433: “However, there is no consensus on the optimal WMT delivery route in clinical
practice at present”. This sentence is non-sense and improper. I suggest to state that there is no
reported difference of efficacy using the different delivery way via mid-gut tube and colonic
TET for FC. This your logistic why did you choose both ways.
8. Check the TABLE 1 for confirming the notes.
9. Table 2B and 2C, try to test “Course of WMT” by other analysis, instead of mean ± standard
deviation? Also check other items.
10. Table 4: is the * at right place?
assistant