Review for 10.1186/s12876-021-01903-5 (2021)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Anti-proteinase 3 antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody reflects disease
activity and predicts the response to steroid therapy in ulcerative colitis
Version: 
0 
Date: 
06 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
General Comments to the Authors
The aim of the present, retrospective study from a research group in Japan was
to investigate the association between ulcerative colitis (UC) and PR3-ANCA, a
disease-specific antibody against granulomatosis with polyangiitis. The main
findings of the study according to the authors were that PR3-ANCA could be a
marker of disease activity and a might predict steroid therapy failure in
ulcerative colitis. 
The findings of the study are rather novel, but the clinical relevance is doubtful.
The retrospective design of the study is a disadvantage of the study. There are no
clear aims of the study expressed in the manuscript.
Specific Comments to the Authors
Abstract
No comments
Introduction
No clear aims of the study are expressed. Data of UC is somewhat incomplete
Methods
Fecal hemoglobin, and not fecal calprotectin, was used as a biomarker of
inflammation. The most common and widely used biomarker for inflammation
in ulcerative colitis is fecal calprotectin. Fecal hemoglobin is seldom used, above
all else in studies of UC. This should be commented on.
The lower age limit of the study was 5 year. Therefore, the authors should
mentioned if any children were included in the study, since this might have an
impact of the results.
Methods for correction of mass significance should be used in order to avoid
type I errors. The authors should include and use any method, e.g. Bonferroni
correction test.
Results
The authors make a lot of comparisons without any corrections for mass
significance. Therefore the risk of type I errors is high. Far too many
comparisons are performed and presented in the results.
The result part should be divided in paragraphs to make it easier to read. In some
comparisons there are very few patients which make the results unreliable. The
authors should comment on this or remove some comparisons.
Discussion
The distribution of the Discussion part is somewhat unsystematic, which make it
diffult to read, a line of argument is missing. 
Many of the results are repeated.
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
No
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 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
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please publish my name with my
report.
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
No
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes