Avalilação PREreview Estruturada de Mapping patient journey in inflammatory bowel disease in Brazil: a cross-sectional descriptive study based on an online survey

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

The introduction clearly defined the essence of the study and the objectives were presented accurately. However, we will appreciate if the authors could provide the reference for this statement "These findings are particularly pertinent to Brazil, where access to specialized care remains limited,further complicating timely treatment of IBD".

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

The method was somewhat appropriate. The study duration was a bit unclear and we would appreciate the authors clarifying whether the data were well collected from May to June 2017 or if it was expanded to other years. If the study data were collected between May and June 2017 and this paper has been made available in 2025, we believe several other patients would have been diagnosed with IBD and not captured in this study which would affect the conclusion in this study. Also, the authors do not indicate whether the adapted questionnaire was piloted to adjust for cultural adaptation and variation in the languages.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Somewhat supported

The conclusion is somewhat supported as we believe the data is skewed with patients of higher status thereby limiting the representativeness of the IBD population in Brazil. We believe that many Brazilians would be using SUS, with a high number of patients diagnosed in the private healthcare settings this could limit generalizability to patients of low socioeconomic status. Also, the author should avoid interpretive conclusions as the study is described as descriptive, and no inferential statistical tool was used

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Somewhat appropriate and clear

The descriptive statistics were well presented. However in the discussion section, the authors presented their finds in an inferential statement which wasn't included the data presentation. The authors should avoid the use of significance in their statements and make it to be descriptive.

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Somewhat clearly

Somewhat clearly. Being a descriptive study, the authors do not explicitly provide the need for future research that will contribute to understanding the factors associated with late diagnosis of IBD patients, and also therapeutic studies to improve patient outcomes. Also, based on the limitations of the study, the authors could recommend the need for a clinical data exploration across Brazil and the need for more representative sampling techniques to reduce bias.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Highly likely

The study provides baseline data to build on

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

No, it needs a major revision

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The authors declare that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.