Pro-Inflammatory Oral Microbiota in Juvenile Spondyloarthritis: A Pilot Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

I had the opportunity to read a fairly well-prepared pilot study.

I don't have much comments about the research planning and methodology itself. We do not set high statistical requirements to the pilot studies. Nevertheless, their goal is to prepare the data for the perfect performance of the final experiment. I would propose to discuss the conclusions drawn from the pilot project in favor of the planned methodology for further research, for example, the target size of the study group.

Sincerely Yours

Reviewer

Author Response

See attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This pilot study assesses the potential role of oral microbiota in children with spondyloarthritis. The richness (Chao1) and evenness (Shannon) obtained from the sub-gingival sulcus and saliva of patients with spondyloarthritis and healthy controls were determined. Fusobacterium species and Rothia mucilaginosa were more prevalent in patients. The manuscript contains four keywords, three tables (two of them as supplemental material), seven figures, and thirty-six references. Overall, it is a correct and well-conducted manuscript, although some remarks are made on different sections of the manuscript.

Keywords
The manuscript presents four keywords. For keywords, where possible, please use Medical Subject Headings terms (MeSH Terms). Correct; initially, only “sub-gingival” is not a MeSH term. Nevertheless, these suggestions about keywords are optional, not mandatory.

Patients and methods
Was the study protocol approved by a Human Research Ethics Committee? Please, if possible, include information about this.
Please, provide further information about the statistical analysis (statistical software, level of significance, etc.).

References
Total number of the manuscript references: 36.
The reference format is not according to the journal guidelines. References should be described as follows, depending on the type of work:

Journal Articles:

1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.

Books and Book Chapters:

2. Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Book Title, 3rd ed.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, Year; pp. 154–196.

3. Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Title of the chapter. In Book Title, 2nd ed.; Editor 1, A., Editor 2, B., Eds.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country,Year; Volume 3, pp. 154–196.

For further information about the reference format proposed by the journal, please, consult the following link: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/children/instructions

Tables
Total number of the manuscript tables: 1.
The table has an appropriate title. Please, include the percentage symbol where applicable.

Figures
Total number of the manuscript figures: 7.
The figures have appropriate figure legends.

Author Response

See attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

 

It was an honor for me to be a reviewer of your manuscript. 

The topic you have taken up is topical and I believe that it may have its implications not only in the cognitive but also clinical scope.

The manuscript is clearly structured and its structure does not raise any concerns on my part.

A significant disadvantage of the publication is the negligible number of patients from whom you collected samples for research. You have honestly presented this issue, even in the subject of the manuscript, but we must be aware that inferring on this basis may be burdened with a great deal of trouble.

 

While reading the content of your publication, I had some doubts, the clarification of which I would like to ask you

1.     In your study, children aged 10 and over were used to minimize the differences between children with permanent and deciduous dentition (line 71). Are your 10-year-old children now completely over the loss of their deciduous teeth? Have they had a dental checkup on dental status and oral health. you didn't point it out in the manuscript. What was the maximum age of a child qualified for the study.

2.     What were the hygienic habits of the patients before the test was taken. Were there any standard hygiene procedures that the patient had to follow? Neglecting hygiene could significantly affect, especially in such a small group, the result of bacteriological examination, both quantitative and qualitative.

3.     As written in lines 114 and 115, no patient had symptoms of gingivitis or periodontitis. How did you find this fact. This thread is omitted from the manuscript

4.     How did you assess the size of the group that took part in your research

5.     In line 110 you found that patients "were similar in respect to age, sex and race"

6.     In my opinion, this statement is risky looking at your details of the test persons

7.     Maybe in the conclusions (line 2019) you should avoid such strong statements due to doubts about the representativeness of the studied group

 

Best regards

Author Response

See attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your kind responses and corrections to the manuscript. 

Once again, I emphasize that I highly appreciate the subject matter addressed by you and therefore I believe that even the preliminary results should be published to inspire readers with this issue.

I hope that in subsequent publications you will expand the study group and standardize the procedures of hygiene and dental examination in the patients.

Best regards