Title: Extent of disease affects the usefulness of fecal biomarkers in ulcerative colitis
Version: 2 Date: 26 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
The points of minor revision
1. Authors chose MES and LI as clinical evaluations out of many clinical evaluations, such as
Mayo score which includes both clinical and endoscopic evaluation. They should explain the
reason why these two evaluations (LI and MES) were chosen in this study, not Mayo.
2. Basically, MES was obviously not appropriate for the surrogate marker of fecal biomarkers,
because it reflects a part of most severe inflammation, not related to the extent of UC activity. It
was better to select different endoscopic score which evaluates the overall disease state such as
“the sum of MES” which included seven segments of the large intestine (appendicular region,
cecum, ascending colon, transverse colon, descending colon, sigmoid colon, and rectum) as
surrogate marker. (This endoscopic evaluation was used in some studies in UC; ex. Changes
in Intestinal Microbiota Following Combination Therapy with Fecal Microbial Transplantation
and Antibiotics for Ulcerative Colitis. Dai Ishikawa et. al. IBD 2017) In the abstract, the section
of introduction, and the section of discussion, the expression “endoscopic evaluation and/or
activity” was used (ex. Line 54 “assessment of endoscopic and clinical disease activity”). The
exact expression they should convey is “Endoscopic evaluation of the most severe part” or MES,
authors should consider revising these points for giving appropriate expression.
3. Line 51, 54, 70. The blanks between words are not constant. This should be corrected.
Title: Extent of disease affects the usefulness of fecal biomarkers in ulcerative colitis
Version: 2 Date: 26 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
The points of minor revision
1. Authors chose MES and LI as clinical evaluations out of many clinical evaluations, such as
Mayo score which includes both clinical and endoscopic evaluation. They should explain the
reason why these two evaluations (LI and MES) were chosen in this study, not Mayo.
2. Basically, MES was obviously not appropriate for the surrogate marker of fecal biomarkers,
because it reflects a part of most severe inflammation, not related to the extent of UC activity. It
was better to select different endoscopic score which evaluates the overall disease state such as
“the sum of MES” which included seven segments of the large intestine (appendicular region,
cecum, ascending colon, transverse colon, descending colon, sigmoid colon, and rectum) as
surrogate marker. (This endoscopic evaluation was used in some studies in UC; ex. Changes
in Intestinal Microbiota Following Combination Therapy with Fecal Microbial Transplantation
and Antibiotics for Ulcerative Colitis. Dai Ishikawa et. al. IBD 2017) In the abstract, the section
of introduction, and the section of discussion, the expression “endoscopic evaluation and/or
activity” was used (ex. Line 54 “assessment of endoscopic and clinical disease activity”). The
exact expression they should convey is “Endoscopic evaluation of the most severe part” or MES,
authors should consider revising these points for giving appropriate expression.
3. Line 51, 54, 70. The blanks between words are not constant. This should be corrected.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Extent of disease affects the usefulness of fecal biomarkers in ulcerative colitis
Version: 2 Date: 26 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
The points of minor revision
1. Authors chose MES and LI as clinical evaluations out of many clinical evaluations, such as
Mayo score which includes both clinical and endoscopic evaluation. They should explain the
reason why these two evaluations (LI and MES) were chosen in this study, not Mayo.
2. Basically, MES was obviously not appropriate for the surrogate marker of fecal biomarkers,
because it reflects a part of most severe inflammation, not related to the extent of UC activity. It
was better to select different endoscopic score which evaluates the overall disease state such as
“the sum of MES” which included seven segments of the large intestine (appendicular region,
cecum, ascending colon, transverse colon, descending colon, sigmoid colon, and rectum) as
surrogate marker. (This endoscopic evaluation was used in some studies in UC; ex. Changes
in Intestinal Microbiota Following Combination Therapy with Fecal Microbial Transplantation
and Antibiotics for Ulcerative Colitis. Dai Ishikawa et. al. IBD 2017) In the abstract, the section
of introduction, and the section of discussion, the expression “endoscopic evaluation and/or
activity” was used (ex. Line 54 “assessment of endoscopic and clinical disease activity”). The
exact expression they should convey is “Endoscopic evaluation of the most severe part” or MES,
authors should consider revising these points for giving appropriate expression.
3. Line 51, 54, 70. The blanks between words are not constant. This should be corrected.
assistant