JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-96 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:The Association Between Celiac Disease and Eosinophilic Esophagitis in
Children and Adults
Version: 2Date:6 May 2013
Reviewer: Carlo Catassi
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has been improved in the revised version and I have no further
criticism.
Minor comment:
Page 6 line 4: I think "affect" should be changed with "effect"
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-13-95 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:A Multi-Country Study of Intussusception in Children Under 2 Years of Age
in Latin America: Analysis of Prospective Surveillance Data.
Version: 1Date:13 February 2013
Reviewer: G Kang
Reviewer's report:
This large prospective multi-country survey of childhood intussusception used the
Brighton criteria to attempt an estimation of baseline rates of intussusception
prior to rotavirus vaccine introduction. The study will add considerable value to
the literature on intussusception, but some key issues need to be highlighted and
discussed in greater detail.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Presentation of a rate requires consideration of the quality and completeness
of the data. While the methods used once patients reached hospital are
appropriate, the authors have little or no control over what proportion of patients
within the catchment area of the hospital actually access healthcare at the
participating hospital. While the issue has been stated as a single sentence in the
discussion and it has been pointed out that data from catchment areas can not
be generalized to the country, it is essential that some estimate of healthcare
utilization by the catchment area population is presented by country, so that the
incidence rate can be adjusted accordingly.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. It is important to emphasize that both the high rate of surgery and the
presentation with 5 or more symptoms in the majority of cases indicate a late
presentation of cases, so it is likely that intussusception that resolved
spontaneously were not included. It would be useful to include the duration of
symptoms before presentation to hospital and then see what proportion of early
and late presentations required surgery.
Discretionary Revisions
1. It would be interesting to report whether there were any spontaneous
reductions, and whether or not those would might the Brighton criteria.
2. Mexico has the highest numbers and Brazil the lowest rate. How do these
figures affect the understanding of the reports of intussuception post-vaccination
from the two countries?
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-13-95 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:A Multi-Country Study of Intussusception in Children Under 2 Years of Age
in Latin America: Analysis of Prospective Surveillance Data.
Version: 2Date:5 May 2013
Reviewer: G Kang
Reviewer's report:
None
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-13-95 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:A Multi-Country Study of Intussusception in Children Under 2 Years of Age
in Latin America: Analysis of Prospective Surveillance Data.
Version: 2Date:16 May 2013
Reviewer: Kong Boo Phua
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript is acceptable.
However, I would like to suggest 2 changes in the language:
1. In the ABSTRACT, from 'Methods: Children under 2 years of age representing
potential IS cases were enrolled in 16 centers in 11 Latin American countries
from January 2003 to May 2005.' to 'Methods: Children under 2 years of age with
potential IS were enrolled in 16 centers in 11 Latin American countries from
January 2003 to May 2005.'
2. In CONCLUSION, from 'To ensure that the study procedures conformed
across all investigator centers add to limit potential under-reporting, the study
protocol, case report form and safety reporting were reviewed with all
investigators and other personnel responsible for the
conduct of the study prior to study start and at regular interval periods.' to 'To
ensure that the study procedures conformed across all investigator centers and
to limit potential under-reporting, the study protocol, case report form and safety
reporting were reviewed with all investigators and other personnel responsible for
the conduct of the study prior to study start and at regular interval periods.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-94 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:A multi-centre randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial to evaluate
the value of a single bolus intravenous alfentanil in CT colonography
Version: 1Date:12 March 2013
Reviewer: Ana Ignajtovic
Reviewer's report:
A multi-centre randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the
value of a single bolus intravenous alfentanil in CT Colonography
Peer review
This is an original and interesting article. In general it is well designed and
reported although there are a few issues that need to be addressed.
1. Abstract – results line 3 – requires p values
2. Methods – population – line 1: Were the pts consecutive?
3. Methods – intervention – there are no comments about allocation concealment
mechanisms – please amend. Who recruited the pts and who assigned the
treatment – please clarify
4. Outcome measures – should come earlier in the paper – only primary
outcomes stated- please clarify if the secondary outcomes were set at the
beginning of the study – this refers again to Conclusion line 4 – all the other
outcomes are at present hypothesis generating (reduced procedural time,
recovery time and safety) as study not powered to assess – please clarify.
5. Table 1 – please insert total numbers as well as percentages
6. it is of great significance that 16/36 pts experienced episodes of desaturation –
please elaborate in the conclusion in terms of safety
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-94 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:A multi-centre randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial to evaluate
the value of a single bolus intravenous alfentanil in CT colonography
Version: 1Date:15 April 2013
Reviewer: Andrew Slater
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Reference 18, 'JAMA' in capitals
2. Reference 24 doesn't make sense
3. Discussion: 'Pain was assessed in prone position only'. According to table 2
pain was assessed in all 4 positions
This is an interesting, well-designed and well-written study worthy of publication.
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:
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-93 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Arterial bleeding during EUS-guided pseudocyst drainage stopped by
placement of a covered self-expandable metal stent
Version: 2Date:27 January 2013
Reviewer: Wim Laleman
Reviewer's report:
Dear sir,
With interest I read the case-report entitled, “Arterial bleeding during EUS-guided
pseudocyst drainage stopped by placement of a covered expandable metal
stent” by Saftoiu et al.
The case-report describes an EUS-guided pseudocystdrainage complicated by
an arterial bleeding which was managed by tamponade by means of a covered
metallic stent.
Albeit interesting and successfully managed (for which I congratulate the
authors), this kind of approach is not novel and has indeed already been widely
applied in parallel conditions during biliopancreatic interventions (reference 18-20
in this case report). Moreover, recently a case-series of 4 patients with similar
conditions were presented by Baron et al (GI Endoscopy November 2012) with a
larger and nicer iconography. The images and in particular the video is very
blurry and difficult to interpret despite the fact that I am an endosonographist.
The authors should try to improve the quality and type of images in order to
render this case report more attractive.
Additionally, the authors should be careful not to go along with unsubstantiated
prophetic statements when touching on the superiority of metallic stent for
drainage of PCFs (“advantage of larger diameter and possible decrease of
recurrence rate”). These premises are stated on case-series and remain to be
proven in RCTs.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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' below
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-92 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Search for atoxic cereals: a phase II, single blind, cross-over study on
safety of a single dose of Triticum monococcum in patients with celiac disease
Version: 1Date:23 February 2013
Reviewer: Stefano S Guandalini
Reviewer's report:
This study aims at assessing the safety of an ancient grain, Triticum
monococcum, in celiac patients.
This author's main criticism is centered on the choice of the intestinal
permeability (IP) test as a valid measure of the effect of acute gluten toxicity in
celiac patients.
In fact, contrary to what is stated ("a method to assess changes of small
intestinal permeability that is known to increase in CD patients exposed to
gluten[11]", IP is not an accepted parameter to evaluate the toxicity of gluten in
celiacs. In fact, reference 11 simply reports, among other elements, the fact that
2 previous studies only (conducted in 1982 and 1991) showed that gluten
induced an acute change in IP. Of note, the 1991 study (Ref.: Greco L, D'Adamo
G, Truscelli A, Parrilli G, Mayer M, Budillon G. Intestinal
permeability after single dose gluten challenge in coeliac disease. Arch Dis
Child. 1991 Jul;66(7):870-2.) uses a dose of gluten (50g) that is 20 times higher
than that employed in the present study!
In other words, the design of the study was doomed to fail to show any benefit of
the ancient grain compared to 2.5g of gluten.
For the rest, the paper is well written, and the remarkable difference in symptoms
reported by the celiac patients when exposed to Tm appears indeed encouraging
and worth of further studies.
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-13-92 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Search for atoxic cereals: a single blind, cross-over study on the safety of a
single dose of Triticum monococcum, in patients with celiac disease
Version: 2Date:9 April 2013
Reviewer: Stefano S Guandalini
Reviewer's report:
The authors have properly addressed my criticisms, and I believe now the paper
can be published.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-92 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Search for atoxic cereals: a single blind, cross-over study on the safety of a
single dose of Triticum monococcum, in patients with celiac disease
Version: 2Date:14 April 2013
Reviewer: Jonas Ludvigsson
Reviewer's report:
No changes needed.
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-13-91 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Rectal Biopsies Procedure in Cystic Fibrosis: Technical Aspects and
Patients Perspective for Clinical Trials Feasibility
Version: 1Date:20 November 2012
Reviewer: Martin Hug
Reviewer's report:
The paper by Maria Servidoni and coworkers compares several different
procedures to obtain rectal biopsies with respect to tissue integrity and tolerability
of the entire procedure for the patients. The study accumulates a significant
number of data and is to my best knowledge one of the first publications
including PROs with respect to the diagnosis of Cystic Fibrosis.
Major points:
The authors conclude that the apparently bigger forceps (Jumbo-forceps) yield
better results than the standard forceps as demonstrated by a higher
transepithelial resistance and appearance of the tissue. Keeping in mind that a
significant fraction of investigators using transepithelial measurements across
colonic mucosae it would be worthwhile comparing these data with those
obtained with suction biopsies. The latter are even less invasive than forceps but
very little is reported on transepithelial resistance of tissue samples obtained
through suction. The authors should compare their data with the literature
published by the Rotterdam group that pioneered the technique in the beginning
of the 90s.
The authors also report that bowel preparation with isotonic saline gives better
results than using either glycerol or mannitol. The latter two (or osmotically active
salt solutions in general) are presumably working osmotically and are rather
more frequently used as laxatives prior to abdominal surgery than saline. Could
the authors speculate why glycerol and/or mannitol respectively have a negative
effect on the tissue quality?
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-13-91 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Rectal Forceps Biopsy Procedure in Cystic Fibrosis: Technical Aspects
and Patients Perspective for Clinical Trials Feasibility
Version: 3Date:5 February 2013
Reviewer: Martin Hug
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions:
Despite the fact that the scope of the present work was NOT to compare forceps
with suction biopsies, the authors should at least mention that the values for
transepithelial resistance found in their study (14 - 21 Ohms x cm2) are
comparable with data found by others using similar (forceps) or even different
(suction) techniques (i.e. Bronsveld I et al. GASTROENTEROLOGY
2000;119:32–40: 27 Ohms x cm2, Hirtz s et al. GASTROENTEROLOGY
2004;127:1085–1095: 24 Ohms x cm2, van Barneveld et al. Biochimica et
Biophysica Acta 1802 (2010) 1062–1069: 24 - 39 Ohms x cm2 (no mean values
given).
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-13-91 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Rectal Forceps Biopsy Procedure in Cystic Fibrosis: Technical Aspects
and Patients Perspective for Clinical Trials Feasibility
Version: 3Date:8 February 2013
Reviewer: Frauke Stanke
Reviewer's report:
please note that the review is provided as a pdf to retain the formatted text in an
easy-to-read manner
FS
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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-13-91 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Rectal Forceps Biopsy Procedure in Cystic Fibrosis: Technical Aspects
and Patients Perspective for Clinical Trials Feasibility
Version: 3Date:9 February 2013
Reviewer: John Clancy
Reviewer's report:
I feel that the revised manuscript is greatly improved, and that my questions and
those of the other reviewers have been addressed.
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:
none to declare
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-88 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Ligation-Assisted Endoscopic Enucleation for the diagnosis and resection
of Small Gastrointestinal Tumors Originating from the Muscularis Propria
Version: 2Date:4 March 2013
Reviewer: Filippo Catalano
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions
In the procedure , authors are writing: "EUS could be use to determine whether
the hypoechoic mass ..." It's important to clarify better.
English language can be improved
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-13-88 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Ligation-Assisted Endoscopic Enucleation for the diagnosis and resection
of Small Gastrointestinal Tumors Originating from the Muscularis Propria
Version: 2Date:26 March 2013
Reviewer: Arjun Koch
Reviewer's report:
I congratulate the authors with a well done study to demonstrate what appears to
be a relatively safe technique to enucleate small SMT's.
There are some remarks from my side that I believe will improve the manuscript:
Major compulsatory revisions:
1. The small SMT's less than 2 cm have a very low potential for malignant
transformation. Therefor often a surveillance policy is offered to patients. What is
their standard surveillance protocol their hospital?
2. I agree that the burden of a small SMT can be taken away by enucleating it
and also the need for further endoscopic follow-up. Why this yearly endoscopic
follow-up? This erases the advantage of resection and ending surveillance. Were
the elesions not resected completely? There is no mentioning of completeness of
resection by histopathological assessment.
3. Can the authors elaborate on why they choose to close the wound with clips
and adhesive sprays? For sure the use of adhesive spray is a quite unorthodox
approach and in my opinion completely unnessecary.
4. They have performed 43 procedures in 2 years time. Was there a learning
curve? Did procedure times diminish over time?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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-13-89 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:A large nationwide population-based case-control study of the association
between intussusception and later celiac disease
Version: 1Date:21 February 2013
Reviewer: Kalle Kurppa
Reviewer's report:
A study by Ludvigsson et al. investigated the possible association of
intussusception and celiac disease. The text is clear and well-written. There are
some (mainly minor) issues that should be clarified.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Introduction, paragraph 2, line 3. I recommend that world “small-bowel
mucosal” or “intestinal” is added before “inflammation”.
2. Methods, Celiac disease, line 9. The authors should clarify what means
“positive for CD serology”? Positive to EmA, TG2-ab or antigliadin antibodies?
The latter are well-known of their poor specificity
3. Methods, Post-hoc analysis, last two lines. I wonder if it really was necessary
to perform post-hoc power calculation, as the usefulness of such retrospective
analysis is controversial
4. Results, Subanalyses, paragraph 2. I do not particularly like this paragraph;
there were really no statistical differences. In my opinion the paragraph should be
reformulated or omitted. Also, it is possible that the “especially high” OR before
1990 is more likely caused by surveillance bias.
5. Discussion, paragraph 2, last four lines. I believe that the authors may read the
full article of Reilly et al. (online first version) from the journals ´website.
6. Discussion, last paragraph. Maybe it should be addressed that the modern
rotavirus vaccine is not associated with an increased risk of intussusception.
7. Table 1. Since the number of the subjects is shown, it should expressed with “
n” (= Age 0-19, n (%))
8. Additional File 1. In my opinion this table is unnecessary and could be omitted.
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-13-89 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:A large nationwide population-based case-control study of the association
between intussusception and later celiac disease
Version: 1Date:2 March 2013
Reviewer: Kamran Rostami
Reviewer's report:
In study by Ludvigsson et al., retrospectively investigated the possible correlation
between intussusception and later biopsy-verified coeliac disease in a large
nationwide case-control study in Swedish population. The authors used the
available database which was published before.
The paper is well written and statistically analyzed very well.
Im not entirely convinced that large database can allow us to analyse some
similar variables accurately. This might be the reason that the authors did not find
an association between intussusception and CD. The authors did not talk much
about the limitation and the weakness of this study that I suggest to be added in
discussion.
I also would like to see a better justification for exploring the association of
coeliac disease and intussusception in the introduction.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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 have no conflict of interest
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-85 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Preventive Effect of Irsogladine or Omeprazole on NSAIDs-Induced
Esophagitis, Peptic Ulcers, and Small Intestinal Lesions in Humans
Version: 1Date:8 January 2013
Reviewer: Shunji Fujimori
Reviewer's report:
The authors show that irsogladine has a preventive effect for NSAID-induced
small intestinal mucosal injuries. The study design is good. However, there are
many problems especially in the presentation. Please see below.
Major points
1) Manuscript writing is insufficiency. Detail methods and results, sufficient
introduction and discussion should be written down.
2) The paper shows no information of NSAID-induced esophageal injuries. The
study cannot conclude preventive effect of irsogladine for NSAID-induced
esophageal injuries. NSAID-induced esophageal injuries should be written
adequately.
3) English should be brushed up. Please check the paper by native speaker.
Minor points
1) The figure 1 (A, B, C) legends are confused.
2) Why dose the sentence “Neither irsogladine nor omeprazole produce any side
effect” be written in analysis of subjects section? It should be written in another
result section.
3) Tangible data should be written in the results of abstract.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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-13-85 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Preventive Effect of Irsogladine or Omeprazole on NSAIDs-Induced
Esophagitis, Peptic Ulcers, and Small Intestinal Lesions in Humans
Version: 1Date:20 January 2013
Reviewer: Ryuichi Iwakiri
Reviewer's report:
This study prospectively compared the effect of irsogladine and opeprazol on
NSAID induced gastrointestinal injury except colon. Authors indicated that both 2
drugs were effective to prevent esophagitis or peptic ulcers. On the other hand,
irsogladine alone had preventive effect on NSAI induced small intestinal injury.
1. Some time, it is difficult to detect small injury by capsule endoscopy. Statistical
differences were demonstrated by authors’ analyses. However, numbers of
lesions detected by capsule endoscope were few. It is questionable that the data
have actual significance. This is a short period study, therefore NSAID alone
control could be set. Such control might help to interpret authors’ data.
2. Authors adopted the data of fecal calprotectin and fecal occult blood to support
the data by capsule endoscope. However, measure unit of calprotectin
(micrograms of calprotectin per gram of stool) does not reflect absolute volume.
Adopted fecal occult blood test is qualitative examination and easily influenced
by food. Therefore, these 2 examination cannot enough support the data of
capsule endoscope.
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-13-85 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Preventive Effect of Irsogladine or Omeprazole on non-steroidal
anti-inflammatory drug-Induced Esophagitis, Peptic Ulcers, and Small Intestinal
Lesions in Humans, a prospective randomized controlled study
Version: 2Date:26 March 2013
Reviewer: Shunji Fujimori
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has been much improved. There are only a few problems in the
manuscript.
Minor points
1) The figure 1 (A, B, C) legends are still confused. Figure 1B is seemed reddish
lesion and figure 1C is seemed mucosal break. (Our reviewer’s printed figure is
no numbering. Please check up carefully.)
2) Significant figure is unconsidered in the manuscript. Ex, p=0.6172 should be
written to p=0.62 especially in the abstract. Also, 2438.26±4040.13 should be
written to 2438±4040 or 2400±4000. Significant figure should be reconsidered
throughout the manuscript.
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-13-85 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Preventive Effect of Irsogladine or Omeprazole on non-steroidal
anti-inflammatory drug-Induced Esophagitis, Peptic Ulcers, and Small Intestinal
Lesions in Humans, a prospective randomized controlled study
Version: 2Date:31 March 2013
Reviewer: Ryuichi Iwakiri
Reviewer's report:
Authors' replies are adequate and made the manuscript sophisticate.
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-13-87 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Combined use of AFP, CEA, CA125 and CAl9-9 improves the sensitivity
for the diagnosis of gastric cancer
Version: 2Date:9 February 2013
Reviewer: Qiang Tong
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
In this manuscript the authors aimed to determine whether the combined use of
AFP, CEA, CA125 and CAl9-9 tumor markers may increase the sensitivity for the
diagnosis of gastric cancer. The sample size of 149 patients with gastric cancer,
111 patients with benign gastric disease and 124 healthy people is reasonable
and reliable. The statistical analysis methods are appropriate. The results are
good and suggest that the optimal application of these common tumor markers
could improve the clinical screening and diagnosis of gastric cancer. Generally
speaking, this is a well-written manuscript and should be of interest to readers of
BMC Gastroenterology.
I only have some concern about the Tables. There are some incorrect
characters, please correct them.
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.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-87 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Combined use of AFP, CEA, CA125 and CAl9-9 improves the sensitivity
for the diagnosis of gastric cancer
Version: 2Date:26 February 2013
Reviewer: yingqun wang
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
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-13-84 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:A survey of functional dyspepsia using Rome III criteria among Malay
subjects attending primary care clinic in an area with low prevalence for
Helicobacter pylori infection
Version: 1Date:19 February 2013
Reviewer: Young-Tae Bak
Reviewer's report:
Authors surveyed the status of FD among Malays with an officially and properly
translated Malay version of the Rome III questionnaire. All process looked quite
reliable and this report shows us the status of FD among local Malays with very
low H. pylori infection.
Several minor points need to be answered and discussed accordingly.
1. “Of those married subjects, females were more likely to have FD and
psychosocial symptoms than men (6.3% vs. 0.6%), P = 0.05.” P=0.05 does not
mean a significant difference. P value should be LESS than 0.05 to be
significant.
2. 10% of the subjects had FD. Can this be expressed as “common”?
3. Expressions like “more common than previously expected” or so may be
better.
4. The word “satiation” is used instead of “satiety” in Rome III.
5. Diagnosis of H. pylori infection was based on CLO and/or histologic
examination of mucosal biopsy specimen from body and/or antrum. Results from
one specimen may be different from those from two specimens. All H. pylori tests
should have been done with specimens from two sites to ensure the proper
reliability of the results.
6. What will you say if a patient has H. pylori infection with symptoms compatible
with FD? Will you exclude the case from FD? This point need to be discussed.
7. Multivariable logistic regression is usually done using those variables which
are shown to be significant from univariable regression. According to the
description, this study used all variables in multivariable analysis regardless of
their significance from univariable analysis.
8. “The married females with FD commonly reported EPS rather than overlap
between EPS and PDS (7 vs. 3 subjects).” Was this a significant difference from
other patients? It seems NOT.
9. “In the current study, patients with FD had significantly greater BMI than those
patients without FD.” Higher BMI was significant only from univariable analysis
and not from multivariable analysis. Therefore, it might not have a clinical
significance.
10. Several mistypings are noted and need to be corrected.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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:
NA
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-84 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:A Rome III survey of functional dyspepsia among the ethnic Malays in a
primary care setting
Version: 2Date:16 April 2013
Reviewer: Young-Tae Bak
Reviewer's report:
Authors surveyed the status of FD among Malays with an officially and properly
translated Malay version of the Rome III questionnaire. All process looked quite
reliable and this report shows us the status of FD among local Malays with very
low H. pylori infection.
The manuscript was appropriately revised reflecting comments from the
reviewers.
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:
Nothing to declare.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-84 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:A Rome III survey of functional dyspepsia among the ethnic Malays in a
primary care setting
Version: 2Date:25 April 2013
Reviewer: Sanjiv Mahadeva
Reviewer's report:
2nd Review
Title: A survey of functional dyspepsia using Rome III criteria among Malay
subjects attending primary care clinic in an area with low prevalence for
Helicobacter pylori infection
Summary
The authors has responded to most of the queries from the previous review
MAJOR
None
MINOR
The manuscript has not been prepared according to the recommended BMC
Gastroenterology format
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-13-86 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Direct Acting Antivirals in Hepatitis C: A Systematic Review of
Neuropsychiatric Risks and Psychiatric Drug Interactions
Version: 3Date:27 March 2013
Reviewer: David Back
Reviewer's report:
This is an important topic and the authors have given us a thorough review which
will be useful to HCPs seeking to optimise the use of DAAs in the treatment of
Hep C.
I have some comments (mostly minor)
1. Page 2. Line 8. pharmaceutical companies?
2. Page 4 Line 13. Both agents inhibit P-gp and telaprevir may inhibit renal
transporters. These statements should be referenced.
3. Page 5. Line 4 & 6 of Methods. Some concern that the searches only went to
Sept 2012. This is such a fast moving field that I would strongly urge the authors
to include articles to March 2013 - else you are losing 6 months of possible
important material.
4. Page 6 Line 14. I would like to see some additional input here on the level of
evidence and make it clear that this was only done in the context of treatment of
depression.
5. Page 7 Line 13. Slightly confused. In Table 2 the notes state that Level 4 is
anecdotal or expert opinion whereas here it implies it is literature based. Clarifyl.
6. Page 8, Line 4. Somewhere (either here or Table 2) would like to see a
comment about the Dec 11 QT warning with escitalopram and citalopram.
7. Page 8 Line 8. Sentence beginning 'Therefore, selection .....' is not clear.
8. Page 8 Last line. Does not make sense. glucuronidation is conjugation!
9. Page 12 Line 8. Why should caution be exercised if there are no suspected
metabolic drug interactions. Clarify.
10. Page 14. Last lines. Do the authors consider that it is realistic that future drug
interaction studies will correlate changes in DAA and psychotropic drug levels
with HCV treatment outcomes and relapse. Most DDI studies have PK endpoints.
11. Table 2. Why if citalopram and escitalopram have the same metabolic
pathway will citalopram levels likely increase while escitalopram have been
shown to decrease with TVR?
12. Table 2. Need some comment for nefazodone.
13. Table 4. Clozapine. Is it realistic to advocate TDM?
14. Table 4. Paliperidone. I understood that this drug is substantially renally
excreted with little evidence for CYP2D6 or CYP3A4 in vivo.
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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-86 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Direct Acting Antivirals in Hepatitis C: A Systematic Review of
Neuropsychiatric Risks and Psychiatric Drug Interactions
Version: 3Date:9 April 2013
Reviewer: peter hauser
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. none
Minor Essential Revisions
1. it is important to clarify that the neuropsychiatric side effects of antiviral
therapy including daa addition to interferon alpha is very likely an underestimate
as pharma has sponsored these studies and subjects with psychiatric illness are
generally excluded (even given that there is a comparision group of subjects on
interferon and not receiving DAAs). similarly the lifetime prevalence of psychiatric
illness in people with HCV is very likely an underestimate as it is based on
chart/clinical diagnosis and subject were not interviewed with psychiatric
diagnostic instruments.
2. the assumption that 'poorly controlled psychiatric illness may compromise
adherence....' is not supported in the literature and perpetuates a myth that
psychiatrically ill people are not compliant with medications and therefore should
not be offered antiveral therapy. also a large US Veteran Affairs study found no
significant decrease among mild and moderate alcohol drinkers (but did in heavy
drinkers) in SVR. Similarly Sylvestre found no significant decrease in SVR for
intermittant IV drug users.
3. there are certain references that have not been included- Pariate studies- see
Lancet 1999 among others, the Sylvestre study, the first prospective study of
interferon induced depression by Hauser in the journal molecular psychiatry
(2002), the US Veteran Affairs study that examined the effects of alcohol use on
SVR in Veterans with HCV, studies of people with stable psychiatric illness who
received antiviral therapy among others.
4. there is an implication that escitalopram is the antidepressant of choice for
treatment of interferon-induced depression, which may be an artifact of phrama
sponsored trials. generally SSRIs as a class and one could extrapolate that most
antidepressants are efficacious in treating interferon-induced depression and that
selection of an antidepressant may be guided by side effects profiles and DDI
with DAA.
Discretionary Revisions-
1.consider another word for 'backbone' of HCV therapy.
2. expand on DDI between DAA and lamotrigine as severe rash is a side effect of
DAAs and lamotrigine is associated with rash and in particular Steven's Johnson
syndrome
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-13-83 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation the Hepa Wash(R) treatment in pigs with acute liver failure
Version: 1Date:25 September 2012
Reviewer: Jakob Izbicki
Reviewer's report:
The article evaluation the Hepa Wash tretment in pigs with acute liver failure
fullfills the conditions of a pilot study. 14 animals were part of the investigation 6
controll, 6 pigs with Hepa Wash Treatment and 2 with MARS Treatment. The fist
12 pigs were randomized to each group. One pig of the control group had to be
excluded from the study because of insufficient implementation of acute liver
failure. All animals in the Hepa Wash treatment group survived the 13 h
observation period, except for one that died after stopping treatment. Four of the
control animals died within this period. Hepa Wash was able to reduce significant
impairment of cerebral perfusion pressure, mean arterial pressure, enhanced
cardiac index, renal functiob, eliminated water soluble and protein bound toxins.
No Adverse events (intracranial blleding) were observed. The 2 pigs treated with
MARS developed after 12 hours of observation a dramatic increase of
intracranial pressure.
This is an intersteting arcticle comparing the different liver support systems Hepa
Wash and MARS. As mentioned already by the authors it is only a small sample
size. But the result are encouraging. The most important question is if this new
liver failure support system could offer a benefit for patients.
Mayor compulsary revisions:
1. The results are amazing and in contrast to already published papers, e.g the
increasing dramatic intracranile pressure is in contrast to results of Mitzner SR et
al Extracorporal support of the failing liver Curr Opin Crit Care 8 : 171-177 (2002)
and Mitzner et al Improvement of hepatorenal syndrome Liver Transpl 6:
277-286. Do the authors have an explanation for their results?
2. Could the authors explain why the Hepa wash method is superior to MARS or
Prometheus? The combination of detoxification capacity of water soluble and
protein-bound toxins and therefore is it possible that drugs eg antibiotics are also
elimated with this system?
3. The amelioration of organ systems as described in the article is caused by the
filter system or is the HEPA wash method also capable of suppurting the liver
(horman, synthetic) function?
4. Increasing intracranial pressure can have diifernt reasons, e.g. noise were all
animal experiments performed in the same way?
5.No Scoring Systems has been used. The duration of the experiment was too
short for using these Scoring Systems?
6. Are there any further results billirubin elemination, acid base elimanation,
temperature development?
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-13-83 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation the Hepa Wash(R) treatment in pigs with acute liver failure
Version: 1Date:26 November 2012
Reviewer: Faouzi Saliba
Reviewer's report:
This is an experimental study performed in a model of Acute liver failure in pigs.
The authors compared an investigational albumin dialysis system (Hepawash®)
in 6 pigs compared to 4 controls and 2 other pigs treated with the MARS®
system.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. There is major confusion in the introduction mixing acute liver failure and acute
on chronic liver failure. These are two different entities. The work in this paper
focused on an acute liver failure pig model. Therefore, the authors should rewrite
all introduction focusing only on ALF populations.
2. The authors took a reference N°1 from the Cochrane database (2004) by Liu
JP et al. This could be repkaced by a more recent one published in British
Journal of Surgery (2011)
3. In introduction. The RELIEF and HELIOS study has no place in this
intrioduction as these were not ALF patients. Other types of liver support systems
have also been evaluated with similar results (13-17). Please keep references on
ALF.
4. The number of animals treated is confusing. In methods it is stated control
group (n=5) and one animal was excluded and the figures illustrates n=5.
Otherwise the sentence needs to be reformulated.
5. Discrepancy between randomization Hepawash (n=6) and MARS (n=2) !!
6a. The timing is confusing throughout the manuscript. In figure 2, should appear
T4, T8 and T12.
6b. As it took a mean of 3 1/4 hours to reach a CPP of 45 mmHg (2-5h). Did all
animal received an 8 hour treatment ?
6c. Do that mean that all animals were sacrified or died at end of treatment ?
7. In results A survival curve could be more accurate till 13 hours when animal
were sacrified.
8. The cerebral perfusion pressure in liver failure sentence could be better within
the Cerebral parameters.
9. In Discussion. the authors should compare their animal model of ALF to
existing models
10. The data on the 2 animals treated with MARS and ICP has not been
previously observed in other reports. Did these 2 animals had the same model of
surgery, drugs during treatment and at end of treatment ? Was there any volume
or albumin reconstitition at end of therapy ?
Minor Essential Revisions
11. Some differences are found between tables and the Results in the
manuscript ie. in hemaodynamics. All values in tables should be expressed with
mean and SD.
12. Do figure the numer of animal per group and at each remaining time in both
table 1 and 2
13. Number of figures to be reduced.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have received speaker's fees from Gambro
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-83 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation the Hepa Wash(R) treatment in pigs with acute liver failure
Version: 2Date:4 March 2013
Reviewer: Faouzi Saliba
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory revision
1_ In abstracts. The data provided on MARS treatment in pigs are very limited
(n=2) and data collected after the MARS therapy and prior and time of animal
death are very difficult to interprete. In addition, they are discordant with the
animal studies reported in the litterature. Therefore, we recommend to delete the
last sentence in the abstract: Surprisingly, animals treated with MARS.....
2- Adding the results on ICP in the abstracts could be important for the readers.
This would highlight better the message of improved cerebral perfusion pressure
was related to improvement in systemic hemodynamics.
3- In Discussion, page 16. The authors should comment more on the animal
models used for MARS and Prometheus and what differ to their model in order to
have discordance on ICP pressure
4- In Results : Page 14. The results of the MARS procedure on survival could be
incorporated also in the survival section of all animals groups page 12.
5- Figure 6 should be deleted as do not bring additional information (see also
comment N°1.
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 have received speaker fees from Gambro.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-83 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation the Hepa Wash(R) treatment in pigs with acute liver failure
Version: 2Date:10 March 2013
Reviewer: Jakob Izbicki
Reviewer's report:
All our concerns and questions of the paper have been answered and the article
had been rewiesed properly
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.
Declaration of competing interests:
All our concerns and questions of the paper have been answered and the article
had been rewiesed properly
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-82 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Barrett's esophagus and the risk of obstructive sleep apnea: A case-control
study
Version: 2Date:27 December 2012
Reviewer: William C Orr
Reviewer's report:
The authors have responded quite satisfactorily to my suggested revisions. I do
apologize for the oversight on my part regarding the OR for COL vs. BE. The
authors are quite correct in that these data were in both the abstract and results.
Dont' know how I misinterpreted what was presented; a moment of "temporary
insanity!"
Discretionary resisions:
1. The authors have noted on pg 5 end of the first par: "...growth factors could
predispose to BE." A statement such as this should be accompanied by at least 1
reference.
2. In the results noted in Fig 2, I feel that if a result is at or below the 5% level of
probability it IS significant, so I think the authors are being very conservative not
to consider this a significant result. Either way is fine by me!!
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.