Review Reports
- Angela Mauro1,*,
- Teresa Giani2 and
- Clelia Di Mari1
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Rogério Do Prado Reviewer 2: Dijana Perković Reviewer 3: Ghasem Solgi
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The introduction is well written and no corrections are required. The article was well written, good language to read, great review, I just though they could have more recent articles, for example, follow PMID: 30641536.
Author Response
Reviewer 1: The introduction is well written and no corrections are required. The article was well written, good language to read, great review, I just though they could have more recent articles, for example, follow PMID: 30641536.
We added more recent articles including PMID: 30641536.
Reviewer 2 Report
The introduction is too long and confusing. Studies with a lot of numerical data are listed.
On page 2, in the text on liver damage, the results of research on liver damage in adults are presented, which cannot be compared with changes in children.
Manifestations of GI changes in adults are described again on page 4.
I would emphasize that the title of the article refers to children.
On page 3, the description of the patient is given too much space for an article that should be a review.
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
The introduction is too long and confusing. Studies with a lot of numerical data are listed.
We re-writed the introduction and deleted part of numerical data
On page 2, in the text on liver damage, the results of research on liver damage in adults are presented, which cannot be compared with changes in children. Manifestations of GI changes in adults are described again on page 4.
We deleted the results of some studies in adults.
I would emphasize that the title of the article refers to children.
We changed the title of the article in “Gastrointestinal Involvement in children with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus”
On page 3, the description of the patient is given too much space for an article that should be a review.
We re-writed and deleted the description of the patient
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors
Please see the commented file as an attachment to make some revisions. Also, the manuscript lacks a good conclusion.
Sincerely,
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment 1: Line 33 we changed in "treatment adverse effect"
Comment 2: we checked and correct a duplicate sentences
Commnt 3: we corrected the sentence
Comment 4: We added citation
Comment 5: we added citation
Comment 6: We revised the sentence
Comment 7: We added a “Conclusion” paragraph