Review for 10.1186/s12876-021-01609-8 (2021)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Incidence and risk factors of micronutrient deficiency in patients with IBD
and intestinal Behçet’s disease: Folate, Vitamin B12, 25-OH-vitamin D, and
Ferritin
Version: 
0 
Date: 
30 Oct 2020
Reviewer's report:
1. Could the authors clarify why patients with intestinal Behcet's have been
included in this study? Would they classify this as a form of inflammatory bowel
disease?
2. The authors state that "bone density is an important factor that affects the
quality of life of patients with IBD". Consider adding that this is often due to
prolonged or repeated courses of corticosteroids in IBD patients and not
micronutrient deficiencies alone. 
3. In Methods, could the authors clarify whether the "micronutrient deficiency"
group were those with a deficiency at baseline or with a deficiency at either
baseline or 6 months?
4. In Methods, could the authors also clarify this statement: "In our study, the
only intestinal surgery associated with diseases of IBD and intestinal BD was
limited to bowel operation", as the terms "intestinal surgery" and "bowel
operation" are interchangeable.
5. Table 2 - is it possible to report relative risk for each micro-nutrient deficiency
separately. This would make more sense than reporting as a combined relative
risk, as some groups will inherently not be at risk of certain micro-nutrient
deficiencies, for example, one would not expect UC patients to have B12
deficiency. 
6. In Results, could the authors clarify the statement "In patients with IBD and
intestinal BD, folate (80.0% vs. 50.4%; P<0.001), vitamin B12 (80.0% vs.
51.2%; P<0.001), and ferritin deficiencies (60.0% vs. 39.2%; P=0.004) were
significantly higher." What comparison is being used here i.e. higher than what?
7. In the section 'Relative risk of micronutrient deficiency', it could be clarified
that 5-ASA use was negatively associated with micronutrient deficiency. 
8. In Discussion, where the authors state that "there was a significant difference
(in B12 deficiency) among patients with UC, CD, and intestinal BD, with the
highest prevalence in patients with intestinal BD (UC, 0% vs. CD, 13.7% vs.
intestinal BD, 18.2%; P=0.038) (Figure 2-b)" it could be pointed out that the
results relating to UC would be expected given the distribution of this disease,
which does not affect the terminal ileum where vitamin B12 is absorbed.
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?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes