Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01548-w (2020)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Recurrence of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis after fecal microbiota
transplantation treatment and the efficacy of re-FMT a case series
Version: 
1 
Date: 
06 Aug 2020
Reviewer's report:
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading
your report as an attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated
versions of manuscripts, graphs, supporting materials or other aspects of your
report which cannot be included in a text format.
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.
The study of FMT for the treatment of ulcerative colitis is an emerging
therapeutic area and additional studies are needed to clarify the therapeutic
potential. 
This is an interesting case series of 12 patients from China with
ulcerative colitis that have been treated with FMT. 
Of note, all 12 patients appear
to be biologic treatment naïve. 
The high rate of clinical response is in line with
treatment naïve patients in previous reports and this data highlights the potential
benefit of FMT. 
Moreover, this case series offers unique follow up data to
suggest durability in this cohort. 
The authors note the limitations of this cases
series—namely that treatments are not uniform and there is no biospecimen
sampling to provide insight into the underlying etiology of the effect.
1. Previous treatments are listed on Table 1. Were the patients on active therapy
prior to FMT? Can the authors confirm that the patients are biologic treatment
naïve?
2. Can the authors provide the week-52 UCDAI & SCCAI for all patients with a
baseline and week 52 endoscopic sub-score. 
3. Was any non-invasive disease-activity monitoring performed (CRP, ESR,
Fecal Calprotectin) after FMT? Can the authors provide an analysis of these
metrics?
4. Can the authors comment on the deciding factors for re-FMT in appropriate
patients? Is this per a particular protocol or the discretion of the treating
physician? 
5. Can the authors comment on alternate therapies used to rescue in recurrence?
6. Can the authors include histologic scoring? 
This would add a unique
dimension to this case series not offered in RCTs.
7. Can the authors provide additional information about the donors?
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 upon publication of the manuscript. 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 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
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?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
No
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes