JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-20 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Medication beliefs among patients with inflammatory bowel disease who report low quality of life: a Title: 
qualitative study. 
 3  14 April 2007 Version: Date: 
 Toke S. Barfod Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
Wednesday, 11 April 2007 
Dear Editors. 
The authors have responded to my questions and suggestions to their paper: “Medication beliefs among 
patients… “ 
I have now reviewed their responses. I believe they have responded very adequately. I only would have 
preferred a more detailed response to my fifth and most important suggestion regarding the consistency 
between phrases in different sections of the paper. 
In any case, I feel the paper can now be recommended for publication. 
Kind regards, 
Toke Barfod 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-17 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Serum leptin concentrations in chronic viral hepatitis: A clinical approach Title: 
 1  8 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 Kazuma Fujimoto Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
This manuscript summarized a role of insulin and insulin resistance in HBV and HCV chronic hepatitis. 
Number of patients was not enough and results should be summarized separately between HBV and HCV. 
1) Title: This title did not indicate the content of this paper. 
2) Regarding HBV, relationship between serum leptin and clinical significance of lamivudine might be a new 
finding, but number of patients in this paper was not sufficient. More subjects should be evaluated in this 
study. 
3) The effect should be different between females and males in HBV. 4) There are many reports of HCV regarding leptin and insulin resistance. Results should be summarized separately with HBV and HCV. I think results of HCV might be deleted in this paper because genotype of 
HCV and/or age of patients were important factors in addition to leptin. 
5) Abstract, conclusion: Why did they describe relationship between HBV and leptin, although HCV and insulin resistance was summarized? 6) P 6, line 16: Maker of insulin resistance was selected QUICKI and HOMA-IR. Why did they calculate 
using both methods? Results of QUICKI were not indicated in detail. 
7) P8, line 21: HBVe antigen was negative in all HBV subjects. Was there any difference in leptin between 
wild type and mutant type? 
8) P9, line 4: Mild steatosis might be severe steatosis. 
9) P9, line 12: Why was leptin level low in non-cirrhotic females compared to controls? 
10) References: There are many references regarding HCV and insulin resistance. These manuscripts should be cited in discussion. 11) There are many typing errors in this paper.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-17 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Serum leptin concentrations in chronic viral hepatitis: A clinical approach Title: 
 1  26 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 Manuel Romero-Gómez Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General Comments: 
This study attempts to analyze the relationship between serum leptin levels and fibrosis progression 
together with its impact on antiviral response. I have got several concerns: 
1.- The main weakness in this study is the low number of patients included. The authors must be 
encouraged to include a large cohort of chronic hepatitis B patients. 2.- As stated by authors, leptin level shows a gender based difference. Indeed, the relationship between leptin concentration and lamivudine response needs to be corrected by sex. 
3.- Although the authors tried to analyze separately both cohorts, some of the statistical analysis taking 
patients all together is not recommendable. In my opinion, the impact of leptin concentration on fibrosis and 
antiviral response needs to be addressed separately in each cohort. 
4.- I miss a reference to a previously reported paper about the impact of insulin resistance on sustained 
response in chronic hepatitis C (Romero-Gomez et al. Gastroenterology 2005). This article must be added 
and discussed. 
5.- Control group showed an average age older than patients group (62.5 vs. 45.5 in males and 53 vs. 38 in 
females). This bias could explain the lack of differences in insulin resistance between groups, owing to the 
fact that HOMA-IR increases with age. 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-17 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 An assessment of serum leptin levels in patients with chronic viral hepatitis: a prospective study Title: 
 2  31 March 2007 Version: Date: 
 Kazuma Fujimoto Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
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: 
 Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
This paper is well revised, although nember of patients is limited.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-17 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 An assessment of serum leptin levels in patients with chronic viral hepatitis: a prospective study Title: 
 2  9 April 2007 Version: Date: 
 Manuel Romero-Gómez Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
I consider the authors tried to improve the manuscript. Although the main concern (the low number of 
patients included) has not been addressed, I accept the manuscript in the current form. 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-16 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Development and psychometric testing of the Visual Analogue Scale for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Title: 
(VAS-IBS) 
 1  28 December 2006 Version: Date: 
 Lloyd Sutherland 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) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
cuo 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-16 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Development and psychometric testing of the Visual Analogue Scale for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Title: 
(VAS-IBS) 
 2  27 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 Margaret Reilly 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) 
Grammatical errors in last sentence before Discussion and the last item in the questionnaire, Appendix 1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-16 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Development and psychometric testing of the Visual Analogue Scale for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Title: 
(VAS-IBS) 
 2  18 March 2007 Version: Date: 
 Nicholas J Talley Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I have re-read the paper. 
The methods state the recall period was 1 week but the questionnaire states 1 month. Which is correct? 
I am still concerned the English phrasing of the instrument is clumsy. It needs to be validated in English and 
this should be explicitly stated. 
Diarrhea and constipation mean different things to different people. This may be a concern in terms of 
reliability. 
I'd like to see data expressed in the abstract rather than generalities. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
No competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-15 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Human serum fetuin A/alpha2HS-glycoprotein level is associated with long-term survival in patients Title: 
with alcoholic liver cirrhosis. Comparison with the Child-Pugh and MELD scores. 
 1  20 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 Edoardo Giovanni Giannini Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The Authors responded to my comments. The modifications made to the manuscript - in particular the 
identification of an adequate AHSG cut-off - have improved the manuscript. I feel that AHSG needs further 
evaluation, since its prognostic capability seems to be not optimal in patients with cirrhosis of viral aetiology. 
Furthermore, acute (or recent) etahnol intake as well as the presence of infections seem to influence the 
performance of this parameter, and this must be taken in due consideration in clinical practice. These limitations, part of which were emphasised by the Auhotrs in their discussion, are the major limitations to 
the use of AHSG. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-15 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Human serum fetuin A/alpha2HS-glycoprotein level is associated with long-term survival in patients Title: 
with alcoholic liver cirrhosis. Comparison with the Child-Pugh and MELD scores. 
 1  6 March 2007 Version: Date: 
 Evangelos Cholongitas Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
There is a considerable improvement of the manuscript. The authors have responded to all queries and their new analysis did not change the main message of the paper regarding the significance of AHSG in alcoholic cirrhosis. Moreover, they analyzed the subgroups with alcoholic hepatitis and they compared the 
performance of Child-Pugh score, which was superior, compared to MELD score. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-14 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Colorectal tumors with complete obstruction - Endoscopic recovery of passage replacing emergency Title: 
surgery? A report of two cases 
 3  4 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Diarmuid O'Riordain Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Manuscript describes two interesting cases but is of more anecdotal than scientific interest and describes 
techniques and an approach which is not new. The suggestion in the conclusions that this approach merits 
a prospective trial is a good one. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 quality of written english is in places poor though it is possible at all times to understand the points being made by the authors. This is a consistent trend throughout the manuscript. Problems include poorly 
constructed phrases and inappropriate use of words. Examples of the former: Abstract line 3 'reduced 
status of the frequently old patients', abstract line 9 'The patients relieved from' and introduction line 1 'is among the most frequent cancer'. Examples of the latter include abstract line 4 'part' abstract line 5 'reopening' abstract line 12 'instantly'. 
Introduction Lines 7-11 - description of the surgical approach to acute colonic obstruction as being 'three 
stage' beginning with defunctioning is very dated and not standard modern practice. Surgical resection of the primary at first operation would be the most widely performed procedure. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 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: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-14 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Colorectal tumors with complete obstruction - Endoscopic recovery of passage replacing emergency Title: 
surgery? A report of two cases 
 3  18 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 ARRIGO ARRIGONI Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The paper deals with a still existing problem (i.e. acute colorectal ostruction by cancer) and thus maintains an interest. ). The use of increasing diameter scopes along guide wires reported in the paper has some interest and a favourable results has been obtained at a low cost. Recent and larger series are however 
available, mainly focused on a combined use of self exandable metallic stents (and must be cited). 
Case description is poor. As the paper essentially concerns a technique, a more extended report is required. In detail: 1) clinical conditions at entry that excluded an emergency surgical option, 2) localization 
of the residual lumen, 3) use of fluoroscopy? use of water soluble contrast media? 4) follow up (in particular 
in patient 1, who didn’t underwent surgery. Survival? Obstruction recurrence? Retreatment? 
Le final part of introduction extensively anticipates results and conclusions. It may be moved into the discussion section and the sentence in Introduction could be reduced for instance to “ We report two patients with symptoms of complete large bowel obstruction who underwent a succefull endoscopic 
recanalization” . 
Thought the text is understandable, some terms and sentences sound unusual or inappopriate. A revision 
of the paper by an English-speaking reader could be useful. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
-Introduction, line 13-14, I would replace the final part of the sentenc instead of “that may..” “and this policy 
may have avoided subsequent colon obstruction”. 
Abstract: line 7, “gastrscope”, replace with gastroscope. Line 12: clarify the significance of “chemotherapy 
instantly” 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
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 after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests' below
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-14 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Colorectal tumors with complete obstruction - Endoscopic recovery of passage replacing emergency Title: 
surgery? A report of two cases 
 4  15 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 ARRIGO ARRIGONI Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The Authors responded to criticisms ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
The Authors responded to criticisms ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests' below
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-13 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Colectomy rate in steroid-refractory colitis initially responsive to cyclosporin: A long-term retrospective Title: 
cohort study 
 1  5 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Diarmuid O'Donoghue Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
This study is important in that it re-iterates the value of ciclosporin in the rescue of patients with steroid refractory UC. Moreover it highlights that there is a small but important long term benefit (avoidance of colectomy)especially for those who are on immunomodulatory agents. 
The message of this paper however is lost by the fact that the paper is very badly written and difficult to 
read. In some places the methods appear in the results and vice versa. The following are just some examples of the above.In the methods the sentence beginning " Thirty eight 
patients ..." goes on for ever and is very difficult to comprehend. This must be shortened and broken up. for 
example the iv group could be briefly described followed by the oral group and then a brief comment on the 
measurement of CsA levels.Some of what follows on that same page is better in resuls rather than 
methods, eg .steroid reduction. In the results section the AZA descriptions would be better in the methods. The opening paragraph of the discussion re-iterates the results. I am not sure the paragraph on infliximab 
adds anyrthing to the work and certainly the conclusion does not relate in any way to the paper presented. 
The paper would benefit from a complete overhaul of the english used. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) Poor english means some of statements difficult to interpret 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that i have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-13 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Colectomy rate in steroid-refractory colitis initially responsive to cyclosporin: A long-term retrospective Title: 
cohort study 
 2  17 December 2006 Version: Date: 
 Diarmuid O'Donoghue Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Re Colectomy rate in steroid refractory colitis 
This re-write is easier to read and understand but still needs work. 
In the abstract the very first line should read CsA may avoid colectomy. 
In the results section of the same abstract I would advise use of numbers with percentages in brackets if necessary. …were 47% and 15 % (use numbers) in the AZA – untreated subgroup (p< 0007 @ 7 years). X of the 34 
patients were relapse-free at 1 year but all had relapsed at 7 years. Omit the rest of this sentence as nearly 
significant has no place in an abstract. Likewise you cannot say” improve perhaps” as it is meaningless. 
Some other comments: What does “post-flare surgery mean” line 6 page 3? 
The last 3 lines of the same page are results not methods 
I do not understand page 4 where it seems the indications for iv therapy was different from oral which I 
suspect is not what the authors intended. “Onset of response etc” same page is results 
There is no need for table 4 
First paragraph p 6 needs rewrite. Do not say “almost reached significance” use trend or just give the p value The frequencies of serious etc …. are shown in Table 5(?4). Tremors etc occurred in between 40 and 60% 
of patients 
Opening para in discussion again re-iterates the results unnecessarily and should be incorporated into the discussion in a better manner. I would omit the final sentence of the conclusion as it weakens the point of the paper. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-13 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Colectomy rate in steroid-refractory colitis initially responsive to cyclosporin: A long-term retrospective Title: 
cohort study 
 2  3 January 2007 Version: Date: 
 Severine Vermeire Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I have read the revised paper as well as the answers to my questions on the paper I reviewed previously (Actis et al) and I can say that the authors have formally answered all of my questions and that the manuscript is ready to be accepted. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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-7-12 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Acute cholecystitis with massive upper gastrointestinal bleed: a case report and review of the Title: 
literature 
 2  26 October 2006 Version: Date: 
 Muhammed Ashraf Memon Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
Under the case report you have made the following statements: 
1. UGIE: Second part of duodenum was normal with bile (no blood) 2. 3X3 cm pseudo-aneurysm which had ruptured into the 1st part of the duodenum 3. Proximal CBD was dilated and on exploration clots were removed 
Under discussion: 
There was no bleeding from the papilla 
The problem is that: 
1. How did the clot appeared in the CBD when the pseudoanursym of the cystic duct eroded into the first part of the duodenum and not in the bile duct 
2. Secondly you have clearly stated above that the second part of the duodenum had not clots and that 
there was no bleeding from the papilla. In other words you are contradicting yourself because if there were clots in the CBD there must be some source of bleeding and therefore you would have seen some bleeding from the papilla and some clots in the 2nd part of the duodenum. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
Introduction: 
Line 6: Remove very before rare 
Line 7: Add reference "Memon MA, Hassan K, Shennan JM. Post Bulbar Chronic duodenal ulcer with major 
upper GIT bleeding from cystic artery. Postgraduate Medical Journal 1995; 71(832): 125-126." 
Case Report: 
Paragraph 1, Line 5: 7days, substitute it for 7 days 
Paragraph 1, Line 6: "tacchycardia (pulse 110/min)", substitute it for tachycardia of 110/min 
Paragraph 2, Line 2: (normal 10-15 mg%) should be (10-15 gm/dl). 
Paragraph 2: Remove the word "normal" from all the values in brackets as it is understood that those values 
represents the normal reference range. 
Paragraph 3, Line 2: started on proton pump inhibitors: What route? oral or IV 
Paragraph 4, Line 1: to confirm gallstones add , after gallstones 
Paragraph 4, Line 23: "She" should be substituted for The patient 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Reject because scientifically unsound 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: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-12 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Acute cholecystitis with massive upper gastrointestinal bleed: a case report and review of the Title: 
literature 
 2  7 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 gugenheim jean Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
This article intitled : Acute cholecystitis with massive upper gastrointestinal bleed : a case report and review 
of the literature is now acceptable for publication. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-12 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Acute cholecystitis with massive upper gastrointestinal bleed: a case report and review of the Title: 
literature 
 2  20 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Markus Buechler Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The present case report illustrates a rare image (bleeding from an aneurysma of the cystic artery) of a 
common gastrointestinal disease (upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage). It demonstrates a certain method to 
manage the problem and delivers a broad view on the literature. In this regard the paper is potentially worth 
for publication. But in agreement with the reviewer Muhammed Ashraf Memon we would suggest to do 
some revision. Especially the fact that there were clots in the CBD as well as in the duodenum should be reconsidered. Probably, the aneurysma eroded into the CBD as well as into the duodenum. A possible 
reason for the fact that there was no bleeding from the papilla might be that the way out through the 
ulceration of the duodenal wall was easier. Furthermore, I agree that the English should be revised, and all the other critics by the reviewer Muhammed Ashraf Memon should be followed. Additionally, I would claim for a consistent use of abbreviations throughout the whole paper after a proper definition 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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-7-12 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Acute cholecystitis with massive upper gastrointestinal bleed: a case report and review of the Title: 
literature 
 3  29 December 2006 Version: Date: 
 Markus Buchler Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
We recognize major improvement in the revised manuscript and would suggest its publication, provided that 
the following minor changes are made: 
The abstract, the case report section and the figure legends should also be checked and corrected by a 
native speaker. In the abstract CBD should not be abbreviated since the word is only used once. Malena 
should be changed to melaena throughout the whole text. In the first paragraph of the case report section 
we would suggest to indicate the systolic and diastolic blood pressure according to the following example: 
100/60 mmHg. In the third paragraph on the first line the word “given” can be left out. In the discussion 
section in last sentence of the fourth paragraph the word “be” should be added as follows: “It is possible to 
miss bleeding form papilla in patients with haemobilia as it may be intermittent in nature…” And finally, in the third sentence of the seventh paragraph the word “no” should be added as follows: However, serious bleeding can be precipitated, when dissection is performed in an area where there is no evidence of acute 
inflammation. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-11 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Gastroparesis in Patients with Inactive Crohns Disease: a case series Title: 
 1  13 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Russell Heigh Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General This is an interesting and helpful case series. It should be published as it will be helpful to other 
physicians who treat patients with IBD. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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)My only suggestions are that the report would be improved if 1)the authors 
included the dates that the 4 cases were identified (for example, 2000-2005, etc) and 2) the number of other 
IBD patients seen was included (for example, between 2000 and 2005 a total of 1000 other patients with 
IBD were seen). These two pieces of information gives the reader an idea of how common this condition 
may be. The work is publishable without this data, but it is less useful. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after discretionary 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: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-10 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Implantation of a colorectal stent as a therapeutic approach in the treatment of esophageal leakage - Title: 
a case report 
 1  14 December 2006 Version: Date: 
 Peter Malfertheiner Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Very well written case report of a novel technique to close esophageal fistulas. 
The use of this stent has not been described before. This case adds to the existing literature in this topic. 
Nice case. 
Klaus Mönkemüller 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
I recommend to shorten the introduction and discussion by 15-20%. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
Klaus Mönkemüller, M.D.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-10 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Implantation of a colorectal stent as a therapeutic approach in the treatment of esophageal leakage - Title: 
a case report 
 1  19 January 2007 Version: Date: 
 Johannes Zacherl Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Interesting case report, helpful in special situation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) 
Abstract background: Anastomotic leaks are usually not followed by a mortality of 60%, especially when 
located cervically; 
Abstract case presentation: what means "...the patient aspirates fluid because the stent was too small..." 
Ther are some contradictory remarks regarding the position of the anastomosis: the tumor was located 
beginning at 23 cm ab oral? (from the incisors?), that whould mean that the esophagus should be resected 
up to the neck (cervical anastomosis), on the other hand the leak drained into the "left" mediastinum and the anastomois has been resected transthoracally (thus, was intrathoracally located??); please give a clear 
description about the localisation of the first and second (after reoperation and resection) anastomosis 
please give a clear description of the time course of interventions, reoperation, stent implantations, starting of oral food intake and discharge I cannot agree that fibrin glue application is the standard treatment of anastomostic leaks 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
use "esophageal remnant" instead of "rest" 
the diameters of the larg polyflex stent are 21mm (body, not 22mm!) and 25mm (flare) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-9 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Antiviral Therapy In Neonatal Cholestatic Cytomegalovirus Hepatitis Title: 
 3  22 July 2006 Version: Date: 
 Philip Rosenthal Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
There are numerous English spelling errors and grammatical errors. This current form of the manuscript will
be greatly improved by someone more familiar with English who revises the manuscript. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
None 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have received research support from Roche Laboratories who make ganciclovir.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-9 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Antiviral Therapy In Neonatal Cholestatic Cytomegalovirus Hepatitis Title: 
 5  22 December 2006 Version: Date: 
 Gail Demmler Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors report their recent experience with a case series of infants with neonatal hepatitis/liver disease 
associated with CMV infection and provide evidence that treatment with ganciclovir is beneficial in these patients. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
Abstract/Results: the word "efficient" may be better "effective". 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Tables: It is possible to unify the data in the four tables into one table. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the statistics. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-8 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Delayed diagnosis of coeliac disease increases cancer risk Title: 
 1  4 October 2006 Version: Date: 
 Timothy Richard Card Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is a further paper looking at the association between malignancy and coeliac disease. It is somewhat 
different to many others in that it examines malignancy diagnosed before or simultaneous with the diagnosis 
of Coeliac disease. Though this confers some novelty it also unfortunately ensures that the study cannot be 
easily interpretted as there is a great risk of bias in the ascertainment of the diagnosis of coeliac disease. It 
is of course to avoid this problem that it is conventional not only not to study pre-existing diagnoses of 
cancer in such studies, but also to censor those from the early part of follow up. To put it more simply we cannot come to any reasonable conclusion about whether this paper shows that people with cancer see doctors more and therefore more commonly have their coeliac disease detected, or people with coeliac 
disease get more cancer. This problem I believe since it results from the fundamental design of the study 
cannot be overcome by revision of the paper, and the authors have neither addressed it in their discussion nor suggested any clear benefit of their study design which could render it valid. The best explanation I can see for the study design used is that the authors wish to look at the effect of more prolonged gluten 
containing diet, and hence have used age at diagnosis as a proxy for duration of coeliac disease not treated 
by diet. I note with interest that they feel that the greater age of those with cancer is evidence that prolonged 
gluten exposure is carcinogenic. Unfortunately I feel one could contend with at least equal validity that the 
results found in this respect reflect only the well known fact that malignancy is in general more common with 
advancing age. I regret therefore that I cannot recommend publication of this paper. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) 
 Reject because scientifically unsound 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: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-8 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Delayed diagnosis of coeliac disease increases cancer risk Title: 
 1  4 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Hugh Freeman Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is an important and well done study again confirming the risk of specific neoplasms in celiac disease. 
The results convey observations from a large multicenter academic group in Italy. There are no serious deficiencies and this paper should be readily 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) 
Minor grammatical errors in manuscript (eg, page 3, line 6...should be "life-long", not long-life. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Methods are appropriate and well described but the authors may wish to offer a comment in the text of their 
discussion on the criteria used in their study to originally diagnose celiac disease. Although diagnosis was 
based on the current NIH consensus guidelines, the diagnosis of celiac disease in reference #22 was based on biopsy, not only before, but also after a gluten-free diet to ensure that there was histological evidence of gluten-sensitivity. 
 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: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-8 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Delayed diagnosis of coeliac disease increases cancer risk Title: 
 1  16 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Eamonn M M Quigley Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I read this paper and the somewhat divergent reviews. 
I agree with reviewer 1 that the issue of ascertainment bias must be addressed. 
I would give the authors an opportunity to address this and also the 
following issues: 1. It is poorly written and needs to be carefully re-written. 2. The nature of the control population needs to be described in much 
more 
detail. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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)