JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-119 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:New PRSS1 and common CFTR mutations in a child with acute recurrent
pancreatitis, could be considered an "Hereditary" form of pancreatitis ?
Version: 1Date:23 March 2010
Reviewer: LIU qi-cai
Reviewer's report:
Dear PhD, Tim Shipley,
I have reviewed the manuscript entitled "New PRSS1 and common CFTR
mutations in a child with acute recurrent pancreatitis, could be considered an
“Hereditary” form of pancreatitis ?" received at 7-March-2010.
For your guidance, my comments are appended below.
Undoubtedly#This paper proposes an extensive investigation of gene backgroud
of pancreatitis in the boy. And the authors have collected much clinical data of
the patients with chronic pancreatitis. As such, the matter is interesting, however
the paper suffers for serious limits; we feel that it is unlikely to achieve an
adequate priority for publication in BMC Genetic until they add some necessary
data.
1)In order to strongly confirm the mutation of PRSS1 genes, direct sequencing is
necessarily needed and the author should offer the figure to support his
standpoint.
2)There is something wrong in localizate the number of basyl. It may be c.547
(p.S181G).
3)The methods in analysis the PRSS1, PRSS2, SPINK1, CTRC and CFTR gene
must be given a few detail.
4)Selecting object is wrong. It must include the normal controls. This may not
draw the correct conclusion(p.S181G mutation, is that a novel SNP?).
5)The author did not describe the forms of the p.S181G mutation, such as
heterozygous mutation or homozygous mutation.
The variants of PRSS1 were checked
http://www.unileipzig.de/pancreasmutation/db.html.
Many thanks
Qi-cai Liu
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-119 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:New PRSS1 and common CFTR mutations in a child with acute recurrent
pancreatitis, could be considered an "Hereditary" form of pancreatitis ?
Version: 3Date:1 June 2010
Reviewer: Atsushi Masamune
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
The authors have well revised the manuscript. But, again, in the absence of
functional study, the role of p.S181G variant in the PRSS1 (which exists with teh
known disease-causing CFTR mutation) remains obscure. Although no carrier
was detected in 100 (is this sufficinet number ?) healthy controls, it does not
mean that the p.S181G varaint is a really disease-causing or disease-modifying
mutation.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-118 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Moderate performance of serum S100A12, in distinguishing inflammatory
bowel disease from irritable bowel syndrome
Version: 1Date:31 May 2010
Reviewer: Steven Leach
Reviewer's report:
The report by Manolakis et al examined serum S100A12 levels in adult IBD (64
with ulcerative colitis and 64 with Crohn’s disease) and IBS (73) patients. Serum
S100A12 levels were investigated in relation to disease discrimination (CD/UC vs
IBS), disease activity, disease behaviour, disease extent, disease location,
disease duration, extra-intestinal manifestation, gender, age, smoking, treatment
and correlation with current serum inflammatory markers (CRP and serum
amyloid A). The authors conclude that Serum S100A12 exhibits moderate
performance as a serum based marker to distinguish IBD from IBS and therefore
its inclusion in the palette of established serum markers should be considered.
Overall the manuscript is well presented, the question asked is relevant, the
methods and group size is suitable, the analysis is generally adequate (see
exception below) and the conclusions are balanced and appropriate.
Minor Essential revision
1. I have one concern that should be clarified. For table 2, it is not clear what ‘P
for trend’ refers to. The method state that two-group tests (t –test or Mann
Whitney) were used however there are three groups for each UC and CD which
indicates that group tests (ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis) should be used.
Discretionary Revisions:
2. The finding that serum S100A12 levels was higher (although not significantly)
in UC non-smokers compared to UC smokers is interesting. It would be of
interest to also include the mean/median CAI score for these groups.
3. Serum S100A12 levels were only compared to active/inactive disease.
Additionally serum S100A12 can also be correlated with CDAI/CAI, which may
provide additional insight into the association between S100A12 and disease
activity.
4. Separate ROCs for CD and UC could also be included with the combined IBD
ROC on figure 1
5. For tables 2, 3 and 4 it would be informative to also include the N values for
each of the groups
6. First paragraph of conclusions, TNF-a should be TNF-#.
7. Table 1. Disease duration. Please clarify that disease duration is in years
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-118 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Moderate performance of serum S100A12, in distinguishing inflammatory
bowel disease from irritable bowel syndrome
Version: 1Date:3 June 2010
Reviewer: Dirk Foell
Reviewer's report:
The authors of this article confirm elevated S100A12 levels in IBD and report a
moderate diagnostic yield for differentiating IBD from IBS. Elevated S100A12
levels in IBD have already been published 2003 in #Gut. The levels reported in
the manuscript by Manolakis et al. are significantly lower than what was reported
before for S100A12 in a number of publications not only regarding IBD but also
other inflammatory diseases. The differences# can be explained by the ELISA
systems used in the different studies. The prototypic ELISA from CISbio used by
Manolakis et al. does not reliably work in serum samples. Meanwhile, CISbio has
stopped the development of an assay system for serum samples. Thus, this
assay was withdrawn from the market.
Major concerns:
1) The authors were probably not aware of the fact that the ELISA they were
using is a prototypic assay that failed validation and is no longer available. They
should at least discuss this.
2) The data obtained are hard to interpret, as the levels of S100A12 are
obviously falsely low and the differences between disease groups are marginal.
The high significance level achieved between IBD and IBS is questionable with
this regard. It is not clear whether nonparametric rank analyses were performed
adequately.
3) For the prototypic assay used, a minimal requirement would be to include
healthy controls and another inflammatory disease control, to be able to compare
with results published before by other groups using independent in-house
ELISAs.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have received reimbursement from CISbio, the manufacturer of the ELISA
assay that was used by the authors. I was involved in the development of that
assay.
Otherwise, there are no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-118 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Moderate performance of serum S100A12, in distinguishing inflammatory
bowel disease from irritable bowel syndrome
Version: 1Date:8 June 2010
Reviewer: Mark Pimentel
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript entitled, "Moderat performance of serum S100A12, in
distinguishing inflammatory bowel disease from irritable bowel syndrome", the
authors attempt to validate the utility of a serum measurement of S100A12 in
separating IBS from IBD in a substantial cohort of subjects. The data are
interesting although the manuscript needs some changes.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
In the methods section of the manuscript, the first paragraph, normal format is to
include average age and other demographics in the results section. What could
be explained in more detail in the methods is how the patients were found. Were
these consecutive patients. Was this through advertising? Were the IBS patrients
from a primary care or tertiary care setting? How many IBS were C-IBS vs
D-IBS?
In the results ist is important to separate IBS into D-IBS for the sake of
comparison of S100A12 levels. I assume you just used D-IBS since these would
be the type of IBS patients that would need to be discriminated from IBD as CD
and UC have diarrhea. However, this is not clear from the paper.
You mention CDAI and CAI but do not report in the results. Was there a
difference in these scores as they correlate to the S100A12?
The results need some work as regards to format. There is too much information
in the results that are just re-emphasizing the tables. If the data is in the table,
you can be more brief. Also do you think a multivariate analysis is better to look
at all these comparisons?
While I think the test has a statistically significant difference from IBS, some
subgroups may not be as clear. For example, colonic CD fell in the range of IBS
in the table. So, I guess it is confusing as to how you subgroup your analysis.
Perhaps the number of subjects is too small to even do these comparisons and
reserve this type of analysis for later study with large number of subjects.
I think the conclusions could be toned down a little. Clearly stool testing of
S100A12 is superior in terms of testing dynamics. Where do you see a role for
this modest sensitivity and sensitivity of serum testing? Is it just for convenience?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-118 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Moderate performance of serum S100A12, in distinguishing inflammatory
bowel disease from irritable bowel syndrome
Version: 2Date:27 July 2010
Reviewer: Steven Leach
Reviewer's report:
Minor issues not for publication: (Discussion and Conclusions, first paragraph)
TNF-a the 'a' should be substituted with the symbol for alpha from the Greek
alphabet.
All other issues have been addressed
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-118 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Moderate performance of serum S100A12, in distinguishing inflammatory
bowel disease from irritable bowel syndrome
Version: 2Date:2 August 2010
Reviewer: Dirk Foell
Reviewer's report:
Although confirmed by the manufacturer of the ELISA assay, the problems of the
ELISA are not mentioned at all in the revised manuscript. As CISbio confirmed,
the assay will never be launched for blood analyses. It is not sufficient to state
the pre-analytical steps in the methods section. Instead, the limitations of the
used assay should be thoroughly discussed in the context of existing reports on
studies using at least two independent ELISAs which work in blood samples,
obviously.
It is unacceptable that the authors did not follow the advice to at least discuss
this issue (and that is really a minimum requirement).
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
As previously stated
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-118 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Moderate performance of serum S100A12, in distinguishing inflammatory
bowel disease from irritable bowel syndrome
Version: 2Date:2 August 2010
Reviewer: Mark Pimentel
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed all of my concerns.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-118 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Moderate performance of serum S100A12, in distinguishing inflammatory
bowel disease from irritable bowel syndrome
Version: 3Date:21 September 2010
Reviewer: Dirk Foell
Reviewer's report:
I have no further comments.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-118 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Moderate performance of serum S100A12, in distinguishing inflammatory
bowel disease from irritable bowel syndrome
Version: 3Date:22 September 2010
Reviewer: Steven Leach
Reviewer's report:
No additional comments
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-116 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Comparability of localization data in transnasal and transoral
esophagogastroduodenoscopy
Version: 2Date:22 April 2010
Reviewer: Atsuhiko Murata
Reviewer's report:
The theme of this paper is unique and interesting. I think that the finding can
contribute to the accurate measurement of distance in transnasal
esophagogastrodueodenoscopy.
However, some revisions are required. Please consider the following points.
(Major compulsory revisions)
1. Authors used the words “esophagogastroduodenoscopy” and “gastroscopy” in
this
paper. Authors should use the word either “esophagogastroduodenoscopy” or
“gastroscopy”. Furthermore, “EGD” should be used as abbreviation if you use
“esophagogastroduodenoscopy” rather than “gastroscopy”.
2. Did the patients undergo both the transoral gastroscopy (TOG) and transnasal
gastroscopy (TNG) in same day?
3. What is the meaning of the measuring the patient’s height?
4. Authors showed the significant difference between TOG and TNG with regard
to the
distance to the cardia (Figure 1). I recommend that authors show the p value and
statistical methods such as Mann-Whitney U-test or Student’s t test. By showing
this,
authors’ hypothesis (fourth paragraph in the Introduction (page 4, lines 10)) can
be
reasonably validated.
5. To highlight the significance of the findings in this paper, authors should
describe about the application to clinical endoscopy (e.g. the accurate
measurement of distance in esophageal diseases).
(Minor essential revisions)
1. Authors should add the regression equation to Figure legends (Figure 2).
(Discretionary revisions)
1. Introduction of this paper seems to be too long. I think that authors had better
delete the first paragraph in Introduction and start from the second paragraph
because the content of first paragraph is irrelevant to the theme of this paper.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-116 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Comparability of localization data in transnasal and transoral
esophagogastroduodenoscopy
Version: 2Date:7 August 2010
Reviewer: Akihiro Mori
Reviewer's report:
The aim of this study was to compare the localization data obtained with the
transoral and transnasal methods. The authors reported there was a strong
correlation between the localization details obtained with both examination
methods, and also the formula for converting localization details between two
methods was practicable for everyday use and allowed rapid conversion. Their
conclusion is interesting. However, there are 2 main issues that concern me.
# Major concerns
1. When a gastroscopy is converted from transnasal to transoral, it would be
more suitable to use a conventional endoscope (larger diameter) because it has
higher resolution than an ultrathin endoscope. The authors performed a transoral
gastroscopy with an ultrathin endoscope. They should comment that their
formula is available for converting localization details even if a conventional
endoscope is used.
2. Although their formula can be used in the location from the cardia to the naris
or upper incisors, it is unusable in the post-cardiac location because the
endoscope shaft is bent in the stomach. Moreover, there must be differences
between a conventional (larger diameter) endoscope and an ultrathin endoscope.
The authors should comment to this remark.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-116 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Comparability of localization data in transnasal and transoral
esophagogastroduodenoscopy
Version: 2Date:18 August 2010
Reviewer: Klaus Moenkemueller
Reviewer's report:
The study from Aymaz et al is simple but clever. Transnasal endoscopy is
performed increasingly and for the physician receiving a report of such procedure
it is useful to have an idea of the location of landmarks such as the Z-line,
beginning of the gastric folds, etc, as these landmarks are important for the
classification of esophagitis and Barrett's esophagus. To the surgeon they may
also be important when evaluating patients with large hernias or "short
esophagi".
Comments:
Introduction:
"Manipulation of the uvula causes gagging". I would say the entire hypopharynx,
Please clarify.
Paitents and methods:
Why do you use both TNG and traditional TOG in all patients? Please clarify.Or
was it only during a specific period of time that you were performing both
procedures in all patients?
Please define the exclusion criteria. There must be some! Coagulopathy,
thrombocytopenia, etc.
Why did you sue sedation for TNG?
Why did you measure the esophagogastric landmarks on the way out and not on
the way in? I have the impressions that once the stomach gets filled with air it
"pulls" the esophagus down a little bit. Please explain.
"All the examination were conducted with Fujinon EG470-N". (all TOG and
TNG?)
Results:
The range of distance of the upper incisiors to cardia is somewhat broad; ranging
from 26 to 50 cm. This is quite unusual as most Z-Lines (and cardia) in adults
begin between 36 to 42. Hoy many patients with Barrett's esophagus did you
have? Can you report on median?
Discussion:
Reference 17 is a book. You should provide a study (literature report).
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-117 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Refractory Obstructive Jaundice in a Child Affected by
Thalassodrepanocytosis: A New Endoscopic Approach
Version: 1Date:3 July 2010
Reviewer: HIDEYUKI YOSHITOMI
Reviewer's report:
BMC Gastroenterology
Case report
Refractory obstructive jaundice in a child affected by thalassodrepancytosis: A
new endoscopic approach
This manuscript describes a rare case of severe and persistent obstructive
jaundice in a child with thalassodrepanocytosis and Gilbert’s syndrome. The
authors successfully treated the patients with deep biliary washing and stenting
using new covered stent.
This manuscript showed an interesting case and might be useful information for
readers who will treat resemble cases. However I think there are several points
which authors should respond for publication in BMC gastroenterology.
Major compulsory revisions
1) The authors should describe the long time prognosis of the patient. They only
describe that the patient was extracted the biliary stent 2 months later (page3
line5). How was the prognosis after removal of the stent? Did the patient never
repeat the sever icterus and/or choledocholithiasis observed after that? As ERCP
showed that slightly bending of common bile duct on Bi and stenosis on Bs
(figure4), I wonder if the stent should be placed at least few more months. Also
they should discuss the timing of the biliary stent removal of the patients who
have dense bile juice in the discussion. In addition, it is better to describe the
advantage of this PTFE covered metallic stent against normal plastic stent. It
might not be needed to use the PTFE covered stent if the stent is placed only for
2 months.
2) The authors should describe the details of the first operation
(cholecystectomy) (page2 line 9-10). How was the inflammation status around
the gallbladder? Was the severe icterus observed before the first operation? As
seen in figure 1, there are several surgical clips just beside the bile duct and the
joint point of cystic duct to CBD seems to have stenosis and bending. I want to
confirm the stenosis of the CBD is related to the disease itself, not to the
operation.
Minor essential revisions
1) Please indicate the location of angle (page2 line 22) in Figure 1.
2) In Figure 2, please put the picture without the endoscope so that the stent can
be seen more clearly
3) The resolution of Figure 3 is not enough. Does this picture show the duodenal
view?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-117 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Refractory Obstructive Jaundice in a Child Affected by
Thalassodrepanocytosis: A New Endoscopic Approach
Version: 1Date:3 August 2010
Reviewer: abdu mulhim
Reviewer's report:
1- is it common problem in your unit
2- is this approach will be standared in such cases
3- need recent references
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-117 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Refractory Obstructive Jaundice in a Child Affected with
Thalassodrepanocytosis: A New Endoscopic Approach
Version: 2Date:29 September 2010
Reviewer: HIDEYUKI YOSHITOMI
Reviewer's report:
Manuscript review
BMC Gastroenterology
Case report
Refractory obstructive jaundice in a child affected by thalassodrepancytosis: A
new endoscopic approach
I read the revised version of the manuscript. They added the new information
about patient's long time prognosis data and primary operation data, which I
thought necessary for this manuscript. Also they responded several minor points
which I pointed out in the first review.
Due to these improved points, I think this manuscript has enough quality for
publishing in BMC gastroenterology and containing important points for people in
the gastroenterology field.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-115 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Peroxiredoxin 2: A potential biomarker for early diagnosis of HBV related
liver fibrosis identified by proteomic analysis of the plasma
Version: 1Date:9 October 2009
Reviewer: Jianjun Shen
Reviewer's report:
Using a 2-D DIGE-based proteomics approach, the authors studied chronic
hepatic B virus (HBV) infection with the plasma samples of 49 healthy control
subjects and 95 patients with different stages of fibrosis. They were able to
identify peroxiredoxin 2 as a potential protein biomarker for the early detection of
HBV related liver fibrosis. Though peroxiredoxin 2 is the only protein identified as
potential biomarker for a very important disease, especially for the population
inside China, this is an important step to take in the right direction. Overall, the
authors designed their experiments properly. The quality of their written English
is good. Should the authors satisfactorily address the following concerns, the
manuscript can be published in BMC Gastroenterology.
1) While pooling samples is understandable in terms of the need to work with a
single sample from each patient group, it’s potentially dangerous because use of
pooled samples may mask interesting differences between patients within each
patient group. Furthermore, pooling samples will eliminate the number of
biological replicates, which is important for the calculation of biological
significance. In this case, the authors at least need to discuss the pro and cons of
pooling samples in their manuscript.
2) Depletion of 2 most abundant plasma proteins, albumin and IgG, together with
pooling samples as described above, simplifies the proteomics analysis.
However, there is a complete lack of detailed description for the depletion
protocol. More detailed information about the method and results of the depletion
(such as depletion efficiency, protein recovery) should be included. Moreover,
potential depletion of other low abundance plasma proteins together with albumin
and IgG should be discussed.
3) For Western blot analysis, “20 mg” of plasma proteins was loaded onto each
lane. The unit of mg must be a typo because that’s too much protein.
4) There should be a space between a number and its unit (such as 30 min
instead of 30min, 8 M instead of 8M). Please go over the entire manuscript and
edit accordingly.
5) More detailed descriptions should be presented throughout the manuscript for
the following tables and figures:
a) What do the Mean±SDs in the Tables 1.1 and 1.2 mean?
b) The authors need to provide a clear, and more detailed explanation of “Areas
under curve of 25 serological markers” for Table 3 in the text of the manuscript.
c) Enlarge Figure 6, so that this reviewer and readers can view it clearly. Right
now, the detailed information of Figure 6 is not visible. Furthermore, a more
detailed figure legend of this figure should be included.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-115 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Peroxiredoxin 2: A potential biomarker for early diagnosis of HBV related
liver fibrosis identified by proteomic analysis of the plasma
Version: 1Date:11 November 2009
Reviewer: Akhilesh Pandey
Reviewer's report:
The study presented by Lu et.al demonstrates utility of serum Peroxiredoxin 2 as
a potential biomarker for diagnosis of early fibrosis. Identification of serum
biomarkers can aid in development of non-invasive diagnostic tests for HBV
related early fibrosis which will increase the survival chances of patients. The
manuscript is suitable for publication after the following major and minor
concerns are addressed.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The proteomics analysis is carried out using DIGE, followed by MALDI-TOF.
The limitations of such approach are several. Peptide mass fingerprinting is
highly prone to make erroneous interpretations. In addition to that, pI of the Prx II
(claimed potential biomarker) is shifted by three units. Figure 2 shows that only
two peptides were used by PMF to ‘identify’ PrxII – this cannot be used as
definitive proof for PrxII (to make matters worse, one of these two peptides
seems to be non-tryptic). Given these facts, authors are suggested to carry out
in-gel digestion followed by MS/MS analysis.
2. The quality of the Western blots is poor. The authors should show entire
panels of the W. blot membranes along with molecular weight markers for the
readers to make their own decision about how good the antibody works and
whether the signals are reliable enough.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. The authors are suggested to provide the raw values of protein levels
identified in plasma as supplementary table. Distribution of the values is not
clear. The error bars shown in box plot display a lot of variation in Prx II in early
fibrosis condition. If such variation is observed, 100% success in identification of
early fibrosis using 0.8 cut off by the algorithm created by authors is difficult to
understand. The authors need to explain the method used to tackle this issue
2. The median indicated for Prx II for early fibrosis condition does not correspond
to the value mentioned in the text. Authors are suggested to correct the plot.
3. It needs to be clarified if 20 ug or 20 mg protein was used for Western blot
(page 10).
4. The authors can present DIGE image with a dye swap to show that the spot
pattern is reproducible with both dyes
5. The authors are suggested to submit the raw data to public proteomics data
repositories such as Tranche/PRIDE/Human Proteinpedia for community use.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-115 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Peroxiredoxin 2: A potential biomarker for early diagnosis of Hepatitis B
Virus related liver fibrosis identified by proteomic analysis of the plasma
Version: 3Date:22 December 2009
Reviewer: Jianjun Shen
Reviewer's report:
The authors have adequately addressed the concerns from my original review.
Minor concern:
1) On page 13, please spell out 25 as twenty-five at the beginning of a sentence.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-114 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Helicobacter pylori infection and gastroduodenal diseases in Vietnam : a
cross-sectional, hospital-based study
Version: 1Date:29 June 2010
Reviewer: Tamara Vorobjova
Reviewer's report:
This study is well done cross-sectional population study for evaluation of
prevalence of H. pylori infection in Vietnam and considers the association of H.
pylori virulence factors with spectrum of H. pylori-associated gastroduodenal
diseases and peculiarities of incidence rate of gastric cancer in northern and
southern cities of Vietnam. This is an important study which makes an additional
contribution to studies of the association between cagA and vacA allelic status of
H. pylori and chronic gastritis as well as of it association with different
gastrointestinal disorders in Asian populations.
The study is set up correctly. The paper is written clearly, the Introduction give a
good overview about the study background and the authors raised clearly the
hypothesis of the study. The description of method is very accurate. The aim of
the study is fulfilled.
The material studied is large enough and allows to drawn the conclusions. The
Tables and Figure give a good overview about the studied materials and results.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-114 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Helicobacter pylori infection and gastroduodenal diseases in Vietnam : a
cross-sectional, hospital-based study
Version: 2Date:31 August 2010
Reviewer: Deniz Ertem
Reviewer's report:
It is obvious from the re-written version of the manuscript that the authors took all
the items raised in my review into consideration and made satisfactory
corrections/additions.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-113 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Bleeding from gastrointestinal angioectasias is not related to bleeding
disorders - a case control study
Version: 1Date:1 February 2010
Reviewer: Meganathan Kannan
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for sending the manuscript for review and my comments are as follows;
1. The aim of the study was reasonable and the primary goal of the study was to
correlate the “bleeding from angioectasis” with the “bleeding disorder”.
2. While the platelet count was normal, that may exclude the possibility of
thrombocytopenia related bleeding; did the authors perform any of the platelet
function studies? Because the platelet dysfunction can cause bleeding.
3. What was the severity of bleeding in the study group? The severity may be
evaluated based on the number of transfusion required (single or multiple) to
stop the bleeding.
4. To have a meaningful statistical comparison, the control group could have
been increased to minimum of fifty.
5. The discussion needs to be re-written.
6. Recent references in the relevant field need to be cited. For example there are
several reports on AVWS and Bleeding disorders.
The manuscript may be accepted after the modification.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-113 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Bleeding from gastrointestinal angioectasias is not related to bleeding
disorders - a case control study
Version: 1Date:8 February 2010
Reviewer: Augusto Federici
Reviewer's report:
The authors have approached an interesting topic, namely the role of acquired
hemostatic defects in the bleeding tendency from gastrointestinal angioectasias
and they wanted to organize a case control study. However the design of the
study is not clear since the authors do not describe in detail the time of the
enrolment of patients and controls. Moreover the description af the VWF
methods and results should be better described especially in those patients who
showed abnormal values VWF activity and of VWF multimers
MAJOR POINTS:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1) <!--[endif]-->Methods and Design of the study page 6 :
The design of the study is not described in detail. If this is really a case control
study, the enrolment of the each patient and his/her control should be organized
at the same time. Did the authors use this approach ? Since the outcome of this
case-control study is to evaluate the causes of the GI bleeding the withdrawal of
blood to test hemostasis abnormalities should be performed when bleeding
occurs. Did the authors use during this case-control study blood samples
obtained during the day of bleeding?
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2) <!--[endif]-->Methods for VWF activities and VWF
Multmers: The authors used commercial tests for VWF activities but they do not
report any data of CV of these test and no information about calibration against
Internanational Standard. For VWF activities. This should be added.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3) <!--[endif]-->Methods for VWF Multmers: The authors
used one of the mot sensitive techniques to assess VWF multimers by
SDS-gel-electrophoresis followed by western bloot and tried to calculate the
amounts of large, intermediate, low VWF multimers by densitometric analyses.
Which agarose did they use and which concentration ?
<!--[if !supportLists]-->4) <!--[endif]-->Results page 9: The authors have
summarized the data of patients versus control in one single Table and have
provided values of statistical difference. However they also report two patients
with prolonged bleeding time and two with loss of the high molecular weight
multimers. I think it could be useful to prepare an additional Table showing all the
parameters found in these four cases.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->5) <!--[endif]-->Discussion It is well know that the
mechanism of the acquired von Willebrand syndrome of patients with
gastrointestinal bleeding is always associated with aortic stenosis or other
cardiovascular disorders. No data have been reported on the specific role of
VWF in GI angioectasias: therefore several statements and comments are
inappropriate and should be modified with comments based on published data.
MINOR POINTS
Please use capital letters for VWF abbreviations: VWF:Ag, VWF activity, VWF
multimers
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-113 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Bleeding from gastrointestinal angioectasias is not related to bleeding
disorders - a case control study
Version: 2Date:17 March 2010
Reviewer: Meganathan Kannan
Reviewer's report:
The authors responded to the queries and modified the manuscript accordingly.
The manuscript may be acceptable now.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-112 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Polymorphisms of genes coding for ghrelin and its receptor in relation to
colorectal cancer risk: a two-step gene-wide case-control study.
Version: 1Date:5 June 2010
Reviewer: Wataru Habano
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-112 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Polymorphisms of genes coding for ghrelin and its receptor in relation to
colorectal cancer risk: a two-step gene-wide case-control study.
Version: 1Date:17 June 2010
Reviewer: Barbara A Leggett
Reviewer's report:
This is a well written manuscript which reports sound and interesting data. This
field is significant since colorectal cancer is a common disease and if genetic
susceptibility was better understood, screening could be better directed.
Some major compulsory revisions need to be addressed:
1. I do not think it is valid or helpful to combine the 2 populations in a joint
analysis of data. It would be better to accept that the 2 populations show different
results and explore possible reasons why. These may include
- the very different characteristics of the German population. These subjects are
on average very young and were selected as possibly having HNPCC. They may
have different genetic causes of colorectal cancer to older sporadic cases. In
addition if ghrelin acts indirectly through the effects of increased BMI, these
subjects may not be old enough to have had sufficient exposure to increased
BMI to show the increased incidence of cancer
- data re possible ethnic differences is not given. The German data is not
presented and it is not clear if data was collected in the Czech population.
- there may different environmental factors in the 2 countries. For example, if the
Czech diet was higher in calories and fat, the effects of genetic predispostion
acting through BMI would be greater
2 The conclusions need modification in light of the above
3. Do the 2 positively associated SNPs in the Czexh population constitute a
haplotype? Or are there 2 separate functional ghrelin variants which may
predispose to colorectal cancer?
Minor Essential revisons:
1. In Background of the abstract indicate should be indicates
2. In the 5th paragraph of the discussion he should be the.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-112 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Polymorphisms of genes coding for ghrelin and its receptor in relation to
colorectal cancer risk: a two-step gene-wide case-control study.
Version: 2Date:12 August 2010
Reviewer: Barbara A Leggett
Reviewer's report:
No further comments
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-112 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Polymorphisms of genes coding for ghrelin and its receptor in relation to
colorectal cancer risk: a two-step gene-wide case-control study.
Version: 2Date:27 August 2010
Reviewer: Wataru Habano
Reviewer's report:
I reviewed the authors' comments and revised manuscript.
I think that the revised version is acceptable for publication.
I would like to leave the final decision to the Editor.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-111 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic treatments for Barrett's esophagus with high grade dysplasia:
a systematic review of safety and effectiveness
Version: 1Date:28 May 2010
Reviewer: Janusz Jankowski
Reviewer's report:
This is a good manuscript. It is well undertaken
The manuscripts conclusions are vaque but the evidence isnt there. Perhaps
they could suggest what studiesshould be done
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-111 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic treatments for Barrett's esophagus: a systematic review of
safety and effectiveness compared to esophagectomy
Version: 2Date:7 September 2010
Reviewer: Rebecca C Fitzgerald
Reviewer's report:
I have looked at the revised manuscript and I am satisfied with the changes
made and am happy to propose that this paper is now published.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-110 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effect of a multispecies probiotic supplement on the quantities of irritable
bowel syndrome-related intestinal microbial phylotypes
Version: 1Date:2 March 2010
Reviewer: Anthony Lembo
Reviewer's report:
Probiotics are commonly used to treat the symptoms of IBS. Questions still
remain on the efficacy of probiotics and little is known about their potential
mechanism of action. The authors in this study using quantitative real-time
polymerase chain reaction evaluated the colonic flora for several different
bacterial species from stored fecal material collected in a previously reported
placebo controlled clinical trial with a combination of probiotics. The findings of
differences in the colonic flora begin to unravel the potential mechanism of action
of probiotics. However, as the authors clearly point out much more work is
needed in this area.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-110 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effect of a multispecies probiotic supplement on quantity of irritable bowel
syndrome-related intestinal microbial phylotypes
Version: 2Date:8 June 2010
Reviewer: Robin Spiller
Reviewer's report:
The additional description of possible functional significance of the
Ruminococcus species adds value to the study. It may be that excessive mucus
degradation plays a part in the disruption of the barrier function reported in some
IBS patients.
It would be intresting to speculate what probiotics might achieve the same
reduction in Ruminococcus species
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-110 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effect of a multispecies probiotic supplement on quantity of irritable bowel
syndrome-related intestinal microbial phylotypes
Version: 2Date:7 August 2010
Reviewer: Giorgio Bedogni
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The choice of a mixed model to study the effect of treatment is a very good
one. However, principal component analysis (PCA) as it is currently performed
does not take into account the longitudinal nature of the data. The outcome of
PCA should be a “change”, as it is for the mixed model. I also do not understand
why the 3-month and 6-month data were analyzed together.
2. Multiple outcomes are evaluated. This implies a greater risk that some of the
findings may be due to chance. This is even more important in view of the fact
that the data obtained from this study were used to test many (arguably not
pre-specified) hypotheses (published in different Journals). Please, note that I am
not saying that this should not be done but that it should be done with great
caution and making very clear the hypothesis-generating feature of the analysis.
3. The issue discussed at point 2 is reinforced when subgroup analysis is
performed. With all due caution, the role of the subgroups may be studied inside
the regression models.
Minor Essential Revisions
4. Please, specify in detail the employed mixed model. I suppose that it included
at least treatment, time, and a timeXtreatment interaction as covariates and the
patient as random intercept.
Discretionary Revisions
5. The part saying that the mixed-model is “like” RM-ANOVA should be removed.
This is useful to make people understand what the mixed model does but
RM-ANOVA is poorly equipped to deal with longitudinal data, e.g. McCulloch CE.
Repeated measures ANOVA, RIP. Chance 2005;18:29-33.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-110 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effect of a multispecies probiotic supplement on quantity of irritable bowel
syndrome-related intestinal microbial phylotypes
Version: 3Date:14 September 2010
Reviewer: Giorgio Bedogni
Reviewer's report:
The Authors have satisfactorily answered all questions.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests