Review for 10.1186/s12876-019-0946-8 (2019)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patient Perceptions of Diagnos tic and Monitoring Tests and 
Procedures  
 
Version: 0 Date: 11 Nov 2018  
 
Reviewer: Jimil Shah  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The study assessed an important and innovative aspect of patient care in IBD.  
 
 
My concerns are:  
 
1. Given high prevalence of  IBD in Canada and simple nature of study, larger sample size 
could have been easily achieved for larger application of study results  
 
 
2. You have not mentioned that whether all patients were enrolled from one 
Gastroenterology clinic or it was a multi -center study  
 
 
3. You have not mentioned what tests were included in 'General blood test' and whether that 
tests were costly or not a s 6 patients refused them for the fear of cost since this issue will 
apply more to the tests like MRI  
 
 
4. Kindly mention the frequency of blood testing which was requested which may explain 
low level of comfort and compliance to blood testing  
 
 
5. In discussion part page no 23 you have mentioned that medical imaging is least often 
requested and most commonly refused. However, these data do not correlate with your 
data in table no -2: Kindly clarify.  
 
 
6. Limitations: Response rate low amongst all pat ients enrolled in CCC website.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional stat istical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language i n the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any w ay gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 org anization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the con tent 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 o f 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  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name w ill be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available u nder an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not b e published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal