JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-24 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 The effect of straining on the diaphragmatic crura with identification of the straining-crural Title: 
reflex. The reflex theory in gastroesophagael competence: a new concept 
 1  16 February 2004 Version: Date: 
 James Francis Xavier FX Jones Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The manuscript by Shafik et al. is an interesting exploration of human crural diaphragm function. The 
results relating to local anesthesia of the muscle are particularly interesting. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 1. In order to determine that any response is a reflex the afferent signal that is "reflected" in the central 
nervous system must be elucidated as well as the efferent arc. The authors have not done this. 
Lidocaine infiltration will remove efferent and afferent pathways. 
In other words how do the authors know that the crural activation during straining or coughing is part 
of a motor programme transmitted to the crural branch of the 
phrenic nerve and with no reflex component at all (to augment the sphincteric response)? I can 
empathasise somewhat with the authors, as human experimentation is very difficult and can never be harmful to the patient. Perhaps the manuscript can be written up as the "straining-crural response" and the reflex theory can be left just that, a theory. 
2. 
It must be made clear in the methods how the stimuli were so precisely timed (in the millisecond range). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) P2 line 6 (10 men and 6 women) 
P2 line 22 "competence mechanism" 
P2 line 23 gastro-esophageal P4 line 10 "swallow studies" "gut endoscopy yielded normal.." P5 3rd paragraph "...coughing and straining via laryngeal and tracheal stimulation by moving the 
enodtracheal tube." 
P6 line 2 "...activity with a mean.." P8 line 8 A delta ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
P4 line 10 
"Laboratory work" is very vague. 
P7 The CD does not share the respiratory movements with the costal diaphragm. 
The CD has respiratory rhythm but is not a respiratory muscle. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-24 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 The effect of straining on the diaphragmatic crura with identification of the straining-crural Title: 
reflex. The reflex theory in gastroesophagael competence: a new concept 
 2  19 March 2004 Version: Date: 
 James Francis Xavier FX Jones Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
The authors replied "The method of stimuli timing was already described on page 5 in the 5th paragraph" 
This is true but it is still not clear how the millisecond latencies were calculated. This is my guess: the 
movement artefact associated with straining appeared on the crural EMG and then the time to the 
first muscle action potential was measured as an index of latency. Is this correct? Perhaps there 
was some timing system operated at the moment of endotracheal movement? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
The authors did not correct this : 
P2 last sentence check spelling of gastro-esophageal (the p is missing). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-24 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 The effect of straining on the diaphragmatic crura with identification of the straining-crural Title: 
reflex. The reflex theory in gastroesophagael competence: a new concept 
 2  6 May 2004 Version: Date: 
 Ravinder K Mittal Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
I have some concerns even though the reviewers have responded to most of the questions 
appropriately. One of my concern still remains which is that it is not clear what do the authors mean by a reflex response? It is clear that crural diaphragm contract during coughing and straining. If I understand correctly authors imply that this reflex originates in the crural diaphragm because when 
they inject lidocain (which blocks sensory nerve fibers) in the crural diaphragm muscle around the 
electrodes, there is a reduction in the amplitude of crural diaphragm EMG and LES pressure. How does localized anesthesia block reflex contraction during coughing and straining is not clear to this reviewer. The authors have used novel methodology and their observation that crural diaphragm 
contracts during coughing and straining is correct and worthy of publication. Either they should 
clarify the reflex more clearly or delete it from the manuscript. I am comfortable with the remainder of the paper and conclusions. 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-24 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 The effect of straining on the diaphragmatic crura with identification of the straining-crural Title: 
reflex.The "reflex theory" in gastroesophageal competence:a new concept 
 3  23 August 2004 Version: Date: 
 Ravinder K Mittal Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
The authors have adequately answered to my question and I am satisfied with 
their response. Thanks for allowing me to look at the authors response.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-23 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Child-Pugh Classification Dependent Alterations in Serum Leptin Levels among Cirrhotic Title: 
Patients: A Case Controlled Study 
 1  21 June 2004 Version: Date: 
 Roberto Testa Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
GeneralThis paper assess the role ofthe clinical grading of viral cirrhosis on serum leptin levels in 
relationships both to nutritional status and to gender. These are not novel findings, but some characteristics of the study are originals: i.e. the focus on viral origin of the cirrhosis, and the balanced diet administered, before the study, both to cirrhotic patients and to controls. The methods 
are appropriate and well described; the work can be replicated. The data are partially sound and 
apparently correct: in Fig. 1 the leptin levels were not found; the Fig. 2 could integrate the Fig. 1, but 
unfortunately the median values are not visible. Therefore the manuscript adhere partially to relevant 
standards for reporting and data deposition. The discussion and conclusions are well balanced and 
adequately supported by the data. The title and the abstract accurately convey what has been found. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 1. Leptin data must be delete in Fig. 1: the leptin levels in controls and in whole cirrhotic group may be reported in the text, while the leptin level distribution according to gender and to Child's class 
were yet reported in Fig. 2. 
2. In the linear regression analysis must be pointed-out that among independent variables the viral 
etiologic factors are virus B and virus C, and the Child-Pugh's classification is intended A-B-C. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-22 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Cyclin A and cyclin D as significant prognostic markers in colorectal patients. Title: 
 1  4 June 2004 Version: Date: 
 Masao Miyashita Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
As authors mentioned as reference papers,there are several papers that reported similar results to 
this present paper submitted here. However, since authors investigated some molecular markers as 
cell cycle regulators, it is worthy to be published here. However, there are several points to be 
revised or to be structurally re-organized. After these problems are all cleared, this paper will be 
suitable to be accepted for publication. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
1) Authors must verify whether a selection of autosy samples as a negative control is suitable to the 
present study using fresh surgical samples because the time from death to sampling at autopsy may 
possibly affect the results. 
2) Authors must describe the detection rates of each staining in the results section before discussing 
the detection rates of cyclin D1 (68%) and cyclin A (80%) in discussion described in p11, 13, 
resepectively. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
1) Figure numbers must be corrected. 2) Errors of words must be corrected. 
allover (all over)(p2, line 1), Ppoorly (Poorly)(p8,line 13), whether (either)(p8, line20),Ki-67 was 
(Ki-67and histone H3 were)(p9, line 11), Utsonomia (Utsunomia) (p11,line 14), the the (the)(p12, line 
13) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
In results, the description of cyclin D1 gene amplification (cyclin D1 amplification V.S. staining, 
pathological data, prognosis) is confusing. Because these are the most important and central results in this study, these need to be summarized in Table. 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-22 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Cyclin A and cyclin D as significant prognostic markers in colorectal patients. Title: 
 2  10 August 2004 Version: Date: 
 Masao Miyashita Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors responded to all the comments by the revised manuscript. Therefore, it is considered to 
be accepted for publication. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-21 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Localization of ABCG5 and ABCG8 proteins in human liver, gall bladder and intestine Title: 
 2  9 July 2004 Version: Date: 
 Folkert Kuipers Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General This paper provides important new information on the localization of the sterolin proteins 
ABCG5 and ABCG8 in human liver, gallbladder and intestine, making use of new peptide-generated 
polyclonal rabbit-antisera on subfractionated liver membrane fractions and immunohistochemistry. It 
is shown that in liver the proteins are present in membranes with a predominant apical 
co-localization, confirmed in liver by significant co-localization with MRP2,but that the two proteins 
also have an expression pattern that is independent from each other. With respect to the latter, it is 
surprising that in liver ABCG8 showed a more intracellular distribution pattern whereas in the intestine ABCG5 showed a more diffuse pattern. This may indicate separate functions of both proteins in these organs. Of specific relevance is the demonstration of ABCG5/8 protein expression 
in the gallbladder, suggesting that this organ is able to modulate bile composition with respect to 
cholesterol content. A surprising finding is the apparent lack of glycosylation of the human proteins, in contrast to the situation in rodents. The potential implications hereof remain elusive for the moment. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
page 12, line 10: "In the liver, cells lining the hepatobiliary tracks (should be "tracts")". Sentence 
apparently not yet finished because both hepatocytes and ductular cells were mentioned earlier. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
-ABCG5/8 activity in the gallbladder, if also present in mice, may explain partly divergent results 
from mouse studies in which either gallbladder bile or hepatic bile was used to establish the effects of gene disruption/pharmacological gene induction on bile composition. Authors may want to comment on this issue. 
-Presence of ABCG8 alone in bile ductular cells is surprising but not further commented on-do the 
authors have any suggestion for a physiological function ? 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-21 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Localization of ABCG5 and ABCG8 proteins in human liver, gall bladder and intestine Title: 
 3  9 September 2004 Version: Date: 
 Victor Ling Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have addressed adequately this reviewer's major concerns. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) None 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-20 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Tissue detection of natural killer(NK)cells in colorectal adenocarcinoma. Title: 
 1  15 June 2004 Version: Date: 
 Jesse Lachter Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
The English needs a little work. 
The opaper is wordy, and its message, which is essentialy a negative result, is one worthy of publication, but in a much shortened form. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
none
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-20 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Tissue detection of natural killer(NK)cells in colorectal adenocarcinoma. Title: 
 3  2 August 2004 Version: Date: 
 Jesse Lachter Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
It is a good item, and I would accept it. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-19 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Antroduodenal Motility in Neurologically Handicapped Children with Feeding Intolerance Title: 
 1  13 June 2004 Version: Date: 
 Jacob C. Langer Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is a very good paper that provides new information about a very difficult group of children that 
many of us struggle with. It is well written and clear. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
1. Many patients undergoing fundoplication also have a gastric emptying procedure done (ie pyloroplasty or antromyotomy). The authors should tell us how many of the children in the study had a gastric emptying procedure done previously. 
2. The authors should go back over the data and see if there is any correlation between specific 
symptoms (ie retching, sweating, diarrhea) and distinct patterns of abnormal motility on their investigations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 1. The authors only discussed the postoperative symptoms. Many of these children also have significant symptoms before the operation. Please give us the preoperative information as well. 
2. It would be good to know what the incidence of these manometric abnormalities is in 
neurologically impaired children who have not had a fundoplication. Is this information available either from the authors' own experience or from the literature? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-19 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Antroduodenal Motility in Neurologically Handicapped Children with Feeding Intolerance Title: 
 2  10 August 2004 Version: Date: 
 Jacob C. Langer Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-18 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Recurrent Barrett's Esophagus and Adenocarcinoma After Esophagectomy Title: 
 1  27 April 2004 Version: Date: 
 George Triadafilopoulos Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is a very well-written report of the experience of the Mayo Clinic Jacksonville group that brings 
to surface an important clinical issue, the recurrence of Barrett's esophagus after esophagectomy for 
Barrett's dysplasia and early cancer. Such experience will undoubtedly be helpful to clinicians in the 
future as esophageal adenocarcinoma is increasingly recognized earlier due to emphasis on 
screening and surveillance 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
The authors need to specifically note the following: 
1. Type of esophagectomy (transhiatal, trnasthoracic) 
2. Open, laparoscopic or thoracoscopic 3. Pyloroplasty or not, endoscopic gastric stasis or not 4. Number of surgeons or the same surgeon (unlikely) 
5. % of need for anastomotic dilation, number of dilation sessions and possible relationship between 
dysphagia, anastomotic stricture and subsequent Barrett's esophagus 
6. Use of ASA or NSAIDs (regular or not) 7. Use of PPIs (regular or not) 
The authors need to at least explore the relationship of the above and the recurrence rates. I 
suspect that the number of observations may not be adequate but it is important to see possible trends. 
On page 6, 22% represents the percentage of the 36 patients, not the 45 and this should be stated. 
This should also be clarified in the abstract. 
On page 7, the authors should report the presence of endoscopic esophagitis in the 3 patients with 
dysplastic Barrett's dysplasia and cancer. If the hypothesis of acid-induced injury is correct, such patients should have worse reflux changes as compared to the other 5. 
On page 9, add: In the study of Oberg et al, despite the use of potent.... 
In the table, the authors should change the word observation with PPI therapy (if indeed this is what 
they did) since this is a strategy that differs from observation and may play a role in ?inducing or 
?suppressing such recurrences. 
It would also be useful to conclude with more "specific" recommendations (albeit 
not-evidence-based): 
1. Yearly endoscopy? 
2. High-dose PPI, PPI for symptoms, or no PPI? 
3. Prokinetics? 
4. ASA, NSAIDs use? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
No conflict
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-18 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Recurrent Barrett's Esophagus and Adenocarcinoma After Esophagectomy Title: 
 1  30 May 2004 Version: Date: 
 Luigi Bonavina Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
This article is in line with other published reports showing the appearance 
or the persistance of intestinal metaplasia in the esophageal remnant after esophagectomy and 
gastric pullup. Indeed,a thoughtful surgeon should always resect all metaplastic epithelium in these patients to avoid metachronous cancer. On the other hand, the only possibility to prevent recurrent 
Barrett is to replace the entire esophagus with colon, but this is a more complex and long operation. I 
find very clear the first message given by the authors: regular endoscopic surveillance is mandatory 
in these patients after esophagectomy. The second message, as emerged in the discussion and conclusions, is not as clear since no objective pH data are provided: should we really treat these patients for ever with such high-dose PPI regimen(160 mg esomeprazole!) irrespective of symptoms 
and histological features? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
The authors should indicate: a)whether the esophagectomy had been performed transthoracically or 
transhiatally, and the site of the anastomosis (chest vs neck); 
b) the prevalence and type of postsurgical symptoms in their patient 
population------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
none
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-18 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Recurrent Barrett's Esophagus and Adenocarcinoma After Esophagectomy Title: 
 1  7 June 2004 Version: Date: 
 Alberto Ruol Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
Patients' data reported in the manuscript on pages 6 & 7 are different from those in Table 1: 
- Patient #1, pre-operative diagnosis: mucosal (manuscript, page 7, line 15) or T3 (table & manuscript, page 7, line 5) cancer? 
- Patients #2 #3 #4, Time to F/U: 42-47 months (manuscript) or 36-41 months (table)? 
- Patient #5, Time to F/U: 90 months (manuscript) or 84 months (table)? - Patient #7, Time to F/U: 17 months (manuscript) or 11 months (table)? 
Manuscript, Page 10, line 5: esophago-jejunostomy instead of esophago-jununostomy. 
Were potent acid-suppressing medications given after esophagectomy to the study patients? if this 
is the case, which regimen was used & how long after surgery? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-17 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Synergic Effect of Chronic Hepatitis C Infection and Beta Thalassemia Major with Marked Title: 
Hepatic Iron Overload on Liver Fibrosis: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study 
 2  31 May 2004 Version: Date: 
 Emanuele Angelucci Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is an interesting well writen paper. The issue is time focused and provide important information for Physician involved in thalassemia care. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) Statistical methods: selection criteria for group 2 and 3 and as they matched with group 1 should be better specified. 
Table 1 : table 1 is difficult to be interpreted: I would prefer Median and range values instead that 
single numbers. The key point is fibrosis score and should be emphasized. 
Paper could be improvved reporting quantitative liver iron concentration instead that 
semiquantitative values. The liver iron concentration can be easily determined on paraffin embedded 
specimens. 
In the discussion I would omitt the discussion on the effects of immunosuppression on liver fibrosis 
in transplanted Thalassemia patients. This paper demonstrate that the same conclusion is appliable to thalassemia patients also. 
BMT is an uncommon abbreviation and can me mislaeding. I suggest to do not abbreviate 
Thalassemia Major. 
Correct spelling is Angelucci and not Angellucci 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-17 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Synergic Effect of Chronic Hepatitis C Infection and Beta Thalassemia Major with Marked Title: 
Hepatic Iron Overload on Liver Fibrosis: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study 
 2  18 June 2004 Version: Date: 
 Caterina Borgna-Pignatti Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General The subject of HCV infection in thalassemia and the roles of the virus and of iron deposition 
is of interest. The study includes a relatively large group of patients with HCV infection with and 
without thalassemia. Unfortunately, the time of infection for the non-thalassemic patients is unknown, 
while for the thalassemic patients it probably coincident with the first few transfusional events. 
Therefore, while the comparison between thalassemics with and without HCV is appropriate, it is 
difficult to compare the progression of fibrosis in the HCV non thalassemia patients. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
In Methods, it is not clear whether the collection of data was performed between April 2001 and jan 
2004 or if the data collected referred to liver biopsies performed in that period of time. Also, were the 
20 patients assigned to each group chosen randomly among all the patients with the diagnoses of 
interest? Why were not all the patients with the diagnoses of interest included in the study? To which 
aspect of the choice of the patients does "randomly" refers? Was the pathologist blind to the 
diagnosis? The conclusions should mention the importance of treatment of interferon therapy for CHI, especially in thalassemia patients. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
In Results, second line, the AA say that the sudy supports the synergic effects of CHI and BMT. 
Actually, iron deposition and not BMT per se should be responsible for the fibrosis. Angelucci should 
be spelled with only one L. The Authors abuse of semicomma (;) using it inappropriately to separate 
words. At the end of discussion: the stage of fibrosis should have been higher (not more)etc.. 
However, again, the duration of the infection is unknown in the CHI patients. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
First sentence BTM is common in PEOPLE OF etc 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-17 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Synergic Effect of Chronic Hepatitis C Infection and Beta Thalassemia Major with Marked Title: 
Hepatic Iron Overload on Liver Fibrosis: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study 
 3  27 July 2004 Version: Date: 
 Caterina Borgna-Pignatti Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The Authors responded satisfactorily to my queries. I have no further criticism.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-16 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Nitric oxide-an endogenous inhibitor of gastric acid secretion in isolated human gastric glands Title: 
 2  12 June 2004 Version: Date: 
 koji Takeuchi Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
Minor Essential Revisions, ie., grammatical errors. 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
The authors satisfactorily revised the manuscript by taking the reviewers comments into 
consideration. I have only minor suggestions on the revised manuscript in the following; Page 16, line 7 from the bottom: indicates----indicate; the same for line 5 from the bottom
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-16 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Nitric oxide-an endogenous inhibitor of gastric acid secretion in isolated human gastric glands Title: 
 2  19 July 2004 Version: Date: 
 Lars Fandriks Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The paper has improved considerably following revision and I now find 
it acceptable for publication in BMC Gastroenterology. However, the authors are advised to omit the word "gastric" on line 15 in Background as the references 9-11 all relate to duodenal bicarbonate 
secretion. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-15 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Liver, spleen, pancreas and kidney involvement by human fascioliasis: imaging findings Title: 
 1  21 May 2004 Version: Date: 
 Mustafa Demirci Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
A interesting case report but same minor essantial revisions reguired 
References must be reduced 
Fasciola hepatica must be written italic and Fasciola hepatica may abreviated as F. hepatica and always F. must be written big. First word of Species name of parasites is big and genus name first 
word is small, 
In the page 5, second paragraph line 9 "The eozinophilia waxed........." The sentence must be written 
more clear form. Line 12 Toxocara Canis must be changed as Toxocara canis. 
The other spelling mistakes must be corrected. The paper must be controlled by a native English speaker 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-15 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Liver, spleen, pancreas and kidney involvement by human fascioliasis: imaging findings Title: 
 1  26 May 2004 Version: Date: 
 Rasoul Sotoudehmanesh Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is a well-described case report of an unusual presentation of fascioliasis. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
1. After the diagnosis was established with a positive ELISA test for fasciola, what was the reason 
for choosing albendazole as the first treatment option? (Fasciola hepatica is known to be resistant to albendazole). 2. In page 9 line 4 of first paragraph, what is the meaning of "nuclear" in the sentence? Do the 
authors mean "unclear"? 
3. In page 9, line 19: the authors have stated that "hypersensitivity reaction to fasciola antigens might also be implicated" to explain the imaging findings in their patients. As hypersensitivity reactions are systemic processes without focal organ involvement, is there any 
evidence that confirms this explanation? 
4. References are not numbered consecutively. 5. There is no legend for figure 3-C. 6. The quality of all pictures, especially figure 2, is poor. The authors should provide higher quality 
pictures and a color picture for figure 2 with a higher resolution. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
The dissemination of the parasite in other organs could be explained by ineffective therapy 
(albendazole) in an immunocompromised patient. A discussion on this matter would be appropriate. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-14 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Maternal Microchimerism in the Livers of Patients with Biliary Atresia: A Preliminary Title: 
Investigation 
 1  29 May 2004 Version: Date: 
 Tatsuo Ichinohe Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This manuscript describes the presence of maternal microchimerism in the liver samples of infants 
with biliary atresia (BA), which the authors regarded as potential etiology of this intractable disease. 
Although the chimeric presence of maternal nucleated cells was clearly demonstrated in this study, 
the lack of control samples, for instance, obtained from children with other hepatic diseases, made it 
uncertain whether the presence of maternal cells in the liver is unique phenomenon with respect to 
the development of BA. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
#1 The chimerism status of control samples derived from the liver of children who do not suffer from 
BA, should be added to the paper, if such an analysis is available. 
#2 Although long-term maternal cell microchimerism is not uncommon among healthy children, only 
a small proportion of them suffer from BA. The authors should discuss an explanation for this 
discrepancy. Furthermore, Shimazaki et al suggested that long-term maternal chimerism might have 
a tolerogenic, rather than an immunogenic role in a study showing less GVH reactions among 
HLA-mismatched microchimeric family members (Blood 2003;101:3334). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-14 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Maternal Microchimerism in the Livers of Patients with Biliary Atresia Title: 
 2  22 July 2004 Version: Date: 
 Tatsuo Ichinohe Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors' thorough and well-detailed response was very helpful and made this work more 
definitive. I think this work includes sufficient new informations to the readers of BMC Gatroenterology. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-13 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Fluvoxamine for fatigue in primary biliary cirrhosis and primary sclerosing cholangitis: a Title: 
randomised controlled trial. 
 1  27 April 2004 Version: Date: 
 Keith D Lindor Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
A few things that should be discussed in the manuscript include: 
1) How was the agent picked (known to be a sedating antidepressant)? 
2) How was the dose arrived at? 3) Was there any difference in response between men and women. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-13 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Fluvoxamine for fatigue in primary biliary cirrhosis and primary sclerosing cholangitis: a Title: 
randomised controlled trial. 
 3  2 July 2004 Version: Date: 
 Martin I Prince Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
No further additonal changes needed 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-12 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Jejunal microvilli atrophy and reduced nutrient transport in rats with abvanced liver cirrhosis: Title: 
improvement by Insulin-like Growth Factor I (IGF-I) 
 1  12 February 2004 Version: Date: 
 Bruce B Scharschmidt Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General: This study represents part of a continuing series of studies examining the effect of IGF-I in 
a rodent model of CCl4-induced cirrhosis. The principal finding is that jejunal vesicles from cirrhotic rats exhibit diminished jejunal vesicle update (both velocity and capacity) of galactose and several amino acids, which is largely reversed by IGF-I administration. These findings indicate the presence 
of an intrinsic abnormality in mucosal jejunal transport correctable by IGF-I. The results do not clarify 
the relationship of the gut and liver abnormalities, nor do they provide mechanistic information about 
the gut abnormalities (e.g., decreased number of transporters vs diminished function). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) The last sentence of the Abstract in background should be moved to methods. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore). It would be informative to the reader if the authors would comment on the likely basis for the observed abnormalities (e.g., 
decreased number of transporters vs diminished transporter function). 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
As I indicated in email response to the original request to review this paper, I am an employee of 
Chiron Corporation, which provided the IGF-I used in these studies to the authors. Chiron has 
discontinued development of IGF-I and I cannot forsee how either Chiron or I might benefit financilly, from the publication or non-publication of this paper.