JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02674-x (2023)

Title: Use of ramucirumab for various treatment linesin real-world practice of patients with
advanced hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 0 Date: 04 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors aimed to retrospectively assess the treatment outcomes of ramucirumab
administered to advanced HCC patients after diverse systemic therapies.
Radiological assessments were determined according to both Response Evaluation Criteria in
Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1 and modified RECIST and the Common Terminology
Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 was used to assess adverse events.
Overall,  37 patients treated with ramucirumab between June 2019 and March 2021 were studied.
Importantly, Ramucirumab was administered in very different setting (as second, third, fourth,
and fifth-line treatment in 35.1%, 37.8%, 21.6%, and 5.4%patients, respectively. Most patients
(29.7%) who received ramucirumab as a second-line therapy were pretreated with lenvatinib.
The median progression-free survival of patients treated with ramucirumab was 2.7 months.
There were no notable adverse events and no significant changes in albumin bilirubin score
during ramucirumab treatment.
They concluded that, although ramucirumab was used for various lines of treatment other than
second-line immediately after sorafenib, its safety and efficacy were not significantly different
from the findings of the REACH-2 trial.
The study has a potential clinical interest. However, while the reported experience in distinct
lines of therapy could be of interest from the safety point of view, very limited conclusions can
be drawn regarding the efficacy due to the differences in enrolled patients, lines of therapy, and
of course front-line therapy (sorafenib vs lenvatinib).
I would suggest focusing the results and discussion only on the safety profile as the reported
experience in the different settings may offer important clinical value.
For the same reasons, the authors should discuss and compare the available experience of other
TKI in the clinical practice, especially for regorafenib and cabozantinib which have a wide range
of real-world experience as recently reported (Experience with regorafenib in the treatment of
hepatocellular carcinoma. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2021 May 28;14:17562848211016959;
Real-Life Clinical Data of Cabozantinib for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Liver
Cancer. 2021 Jul;10(4):370-379).
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02650-5 (2023)

Title: Survival analysis and individualized prediction of survival benefit for pancreatic signet
ring cell carcinoma: A population study based on the SEER database
Version: 2 Date: 11 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
Very interesting study on an important topic. I have the following concerns:
1) Like all SEER studies, this analysis lacks of granularity of data and this major limitation
should be commented in the Discussion
2)  In the KM curves, i would like to see shorted time periods (not every 50 months....)
3) The authors should comment some potential non-surgical interventional therapies for this
neoplasm, citing similar examples in PDAC (PMID: 27356212)
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02650-5 (2023)

Title: Survival analysis and individualized prediction of survival benefit for pancreatic signet
ring cell carcinoma: A population study based on the SEER database
Version: 2 Date: 19 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
This paper establishes an effective prognostic nomogram for pancreatic signet-ring cell
carcinoma to predict the risks associated with patient outcome.
The generated nomogram accurately predicts the prognosis of pancreatic signet-ring cell
carcinoma and is excellent.
What do the authors think can be done to improve the prognosis of pancreatic signet-ring cell
carcinoma?
I think it deserves acceptance.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02659-w (2023)

Title: FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH DELAYED REPORTING FOR SURGICAL
CARE AMONG PATIENTS WITH SURGICAL ACUTE ABDOMEN ATTENDED AT
MUHIMBILI NATIONAL HOSPITAL – TANZANIA.
Version: 5 Date: 02 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
It is evident that the authors have done a revision of the previous draft. The details are clearer
and easily understood.
The goals are definite, the purpose is clear, and the findings build on the existing body of
knowledge about surgical care in Tanzania and in developing countries.
The findings from this study can be used by policymakers and hospital administrations
to facilitate the early presentation and prompt management of patients with surgical acute
abdomen. It would also aid teams with triaging and prioritizing the care of patients and the
effective use of resources.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02691-w (2023)

Title: Title: Immediate postoperative parenteral anticoagulant therapy in patients with
mesenteric ischemia after intestinal resection – A retrospective cohort study at a single institute.
Version: 2 Date: 17 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
The topic is interesting for the clinicians.However,there are lots of major issues that should be
addressed. Some comments are listed as follows.
1.In the Methods section, how to select the 85 patients should be introduced in a flow chart.
2.There is a small sample size.In the Methods section, "between January 2007 and December
2019" should be updated.
3.In the Methods section, whether oral antiplatelets will affect the outcome.
4.In the References section, "de Stoppelaar SF" in the No.29 should be revised "De Stoppelaar
SF".
5.In the Table 1, there are something wrong in"Organ failure in non-sepsis",because the Results
section described 12 patients with hepatic failure.
6.In the Table 3 and 4, why p < 0.1 were selected?
7.In the Table 2, 3 and 4, more comorbidity should be described.
8.In the Table 2, 3 and 4, what is the meaning of "Positive band form of WBC"?
9.These Tables should be organized and decorated.
10.Follow-up and management of survival patients should be described.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02691-w (2023)

Title: Title: Immediate postoperative parenteral anticoagulant therapy in patients with
mesenteric ischemia after intestinal resection – A retrospective cohort study at a single institute.
Version: 2 Date: 10 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is a retrospective study of patients with acute mesenteric infarction (AMI) and bowel
gangrene in a single center. This study aimed to elucidate the benefit of postoperative parenteral
anticoagulant in patients with AMI and intestinal resection.
The manuscript has several limitations:
The major limitation in this study was its retrospective study design and the limited number of
patients. It is difficult to draw a convincing conclusion among so many confounding factors from
85 patients. Patients without anticoagulant tended to have a more severe inflammatory response
(WBC, albumin), increased incidence of shock status and decreased hemoglobin level. These
difference may lead to different conclusion. The propensity matching analysis based on a larger
sample size may be a more appropriate statistical method.
“The patients who did not have immediate postoperative parenteral anticoagulants were
categorized into group A and those who had immediate postoperative parenteral anticoagulants
were included in group B.” Does this means patients in group A were also received enoxaparin?
The median time interval after operation for patients in group A received enoxaparin is ? This
definition of immediate postoperative parenteral anticoagulants should be explicitly stated in
material and methods.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02691-w (2023)

Title: Title: Immediate postoperative parenteral anticoagulant therapy in patients with
mesenteric ischemia after intestinal resection – A retrospective cohort study at a single institute.
Version: 3 Date: 24 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Some comments are listed.
1.The authors should carefully check the language and grammar. In the Results section,
"opatients" should be revised as "patients". "35 females and 50 males" should be revised as "35
female and 50 male".
2.In the Discussion section, "with confidence interval between 0.246 -0.980" should be revised
as "95% confidence interval between 0.246 and 0.980".
3.In the Table 3 and 4, "65 year" should be revised "65 years".
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02691-w (2023)

Title: Title: Immediate postoperative parenteral anticoagulant therapy in patients with
mesenteric ischemia after intestinal resection – A retrospective cohort study at a single institute.
Version: 3 Date: 24 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
This retrospective study aimed to elucidate the benefit of postoperative parenteral anticoagulant
in patients with intestinal resection. However, I have several concerns:
1. Too many spelling mistakes and professional language editing service is suggested.
2. To date, there is no single drugs or devices to significantly reduce the mortality of AMI. An
integrated intestinal stroke center is a preferred model. In most center, parenteral anticoagulant
agent was given routinely during and after surgery, without anticoagulation contraindications.
I was wondering why the current study was performed.
3. METHOD: not all patients in Group B received enoxaparin. The statement in ABSTRACT
was incorrect. Too many similar mistakes.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02691-w (2023)

Title: Title: Immediate postoperative parenteral anticoagulant therapy in patients with
mesenteric ischemia after intestinal resection – A retrospective cohort study at a single institute.
Version: 3 Date: 25 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
This study aimed to elucidate the benefits of postoperative parenteral anticoagulant in patients
with AMI and intestinal resection.
There were some limitations:
1. Page 2 conclusion part: There is an unnecessary “s” behind “improves”.
2. Page 6 Line 3: There is an unnecessary “o” behind “patients”.
3. Would the author introduce the preoperative anticoagulation strategy? The author mentioned
in the paper that nineteen patients had recent major cardiovascular procedures.
4.  Some enrolled patients may have a long hospital stay, even some may be more than 30 days.
So would the in-hospital mortality other than the overall 30-day mortality reflect the real-world
perioperative data?
5.  Would the author can introduce more perioperative details for us, including the arrythmia,
anastomosis leakage, and length of stay? How many patients underwent one-stage anastomosis
and how many patient do not underwent anastomosis? How may patients underwent
postoperative bleeding which needed extra operation? Are there any patients suffer from
postoperative bleeding of important organs?
6. Would the author tell us the indication to administrate the enoxaparin?
7. There were so many confounding factors. It is hard to draw the conclusion that the
postoperative parenteral anticoagulants would benefit the patients, just by multivariate analysis.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02691-w (2023)

Title: Title: Immediate postoperative parenteral anticoagulant therapy in patients with
mesenteric ischemia after intestinal resection – A retrospective cohort study at a single institute.
Version: 3 Date: 06 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
I still think that  it is difficult to draw a convincing conclusion among so many confounding
factors from 85 patients. The propensity matching analysis based on a larger sample size may
be a more appropriate statistical method. No additional comments to the paper.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02691-w (2023)

Title: Title: Immediate postoperative parenteral anticoagulant therapy in patients with
mesenteric ischemia after intestinal resection – A retrospective cohort study at a single institute.
Version: 3 Date: 22 Apr 2022
Reviewer:  Ahmed Kamel Abdulhamid
Reviewer's report:
My Comments:
1-Title and abstract:
If the study used enoxaprin only , then I think in the title the author must use the word enoxaparin
instead of anticoagulants. This can make the study more significant and unique. The term anti-
coagulant is very wide
In addition, the author should add their findings to the title (improve prognosis)
So I think the title must be:
Title: Immediate postoperative parenteral enoxaparin in the patients with mesenteric infarction
after intestine resection can improve the prognosis significantly – a retrospective cohort research
in a single institute.
However, I can see that in abstract the authors said that they used enoxaparin only. But in the
result section they said that enoxaparin and heparin were used. So this discrepancy must be
corrected
2-Method and result sections:
Regarding group B: the authors should explain what they mean by immediate post-op exactly.
Is it minutes post-op? how many minutes? Or is it hours post op? how many hours?
Regarding group A: have they not received post op enoxaparin at all? Or have they received
enoxaprin post op but it was not immediate? If this is the case, then authors again should explain
when it was exactly? was it days post op? if yes, how many days?
I can see (in result section) that anti-platelets and heparin were used as well (not only enoxaparin
as was mentioned in abstract). I think that the comparison must be specific such as anti-platelet
versus non anti-platelets or anti-coagulant versus non anti-coagulants
In addition, in order to show the pure effect of anti-coagulants, other variables must be nearly
similar. In other words, the authors must compare between group A and group B in terms of effect
of post op anti-coagulants only. This means that other variables (between group A and B) must
be nearly similar.  Such as the extent of bowel gangrene , the cause of this gangrene, the exact
finding on gross and microscopic pathological examination, surgery used, surgeon experience,
duration of surgery, time taken before presentation , time taken for diagnosis, patient's factors
such as age, past medical history, co-morbidities, past surgical history, drug history and the
degree of patho-physiological disturbance at time of presentation. The authors must explain all
these findings and whether they were nearly similar or not
3-Discussion and conclusion section
-There is no need to explain the mechanism of action anti-coagulants and anti-platelets
-The authors should try to explain the potential reasons of their results
-The authors must compare their study with other studies
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02691-w (2023)

Title: Title: Immediate postoperative parenteral anticoagulant therapy in patients with
mesenteric ischemia after intestinal resection – A retrospective cohort study at a single institute.
Version: 4 Date: 04 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Ahmed Kamel Abdulhamid
Reviewer's report:
Revision accepted
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02691-w (2023)

Title: Title: Immediate postoperative parenteral anticoagulant therapy in patients with
mesenteric ischemia after intestinal resection – A retrospective cohort study at a single institute.
Version: 4 Date: 06 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
There were still so many confounding factors and was difficult to draw the conclusion that the
postoperative par-enteral anticoagulants would benefit the patients, just by multivariate  analysis
from this study. The author should be carefully reassess the study design and  focused on the
explanations of treatment of group B.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02691-w (2023)

Title: Title: Immediate postoperative parenteral anticoagulant therapy in patients with
mesenteric ischemia after intestinal resection – A retrospective cohort study at a single institute.
Version: 5 Date: 15 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
Acceptable
Is the STROBE checklist attached?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02676-9 (2023)

Title: Prognostic Factors for the Efficacy of Infliximab in Patients with Luminal Fistulizing
Crohn’s Disease
Version: 2 Date: 28 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
A decent retrospective study; although fraught with limitations.
The authors should clarify the lack of effective use of MRI and therapeutic drug monitoring in
the present era.
The following are suggested to enhance the manuscript:
1. How many patients had MRI as part of evaluation? Please clarify
2. The methods section needs to be elaborate
3. The numbers are too less to develop a nomogram; requires prospective validation
4. The following needs to be discussed as the discussion is lacking comparison with relevant
available data:
a. Braithwaite GC, Lee MJ, Hind D, Brown SR. Prognostic factors affecting outcomes
in fistulating perianal Crohn's disease: a systematic review. Tech Coloproctol. 2017
Jul;21(7):501-519. doi: 10.1007/s10151-017-1647-3. Epub 2017 Jun 20. PMID: 28639073;
PMCID: PMC5550543.
b. Sun XL, Chen SY, Tao SS, Qiao LC, Chen HJ, Yang BL. Optimized timing of using infliximab
in perianal fistulizing Crohn's disease. World J Gastroenterol. 2020 Apr 14;26(14):1554-1563.
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i14.1554. PMID: 32327905; PMCID: PMC7167413.
c. Papamichael K, Cheifetz AS. Defining and predicting deep remission in patients with
perianal fistulizing Crohn's disease on anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy. World J Gastroenterol.
2017 Sep 14;23(34):6197-6200. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i34.6197. PMID: 28974885; PMCID:
PMC5603485.
d. Thomassin L, Armengol-Debeir L, Charpentier C, Bridoux V, Koning E, Savoye G, Savoye-
Collet C. Magnetic resonance imaging may predict deep remission in patients with perianal
fistulizing Crohn's disease. World J Gastroenterol. 2017 Jun 21;23(23):4285-4292. doi: 10.3748/
wjg.v23.i23.4285. PMID: 28694669; PMCID: PMC5483503.
e. Billiet T, Cleynen I, Ballet V, Ferrante M, Van Assche G, Gils A, Vermeire S. Prognostic
factors for long-term infliximab treatment in Crohn's disease patients: a 20-year single centre
experience. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016 Oct;44(7):673-83. doi: 10.1111/apt.13754. Epub
2016 Aug 9. PMID: 27502581.
f. Gu B, Venkatesh K, Williams AJ, Ng W, Corte C, Gholamrezaei A, Ghaly S, Xuan W,
Paramsothy S, Connor S. Higher infliximab and adalimumab trough levels are associated with
fistula healing in patients with fistulising perianal Crohn's disease. World J Gastroenterol.
2022 Jun 21;28(23):2597-2608. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i23.2597. PMID: 35949350; PMCID:
PMC9254145.
g. De Gregorio M, Lee T, Krishnaprasad K, Amos G, An YK, Bastian-Jordan M, Begun J,
Borok N, Brown DJM, Cheung W, Connor SJ, Gerstenmaier J, Gilbert LE, Gilmore R, Gu B,
Kutaiba N, Lee A, Mahy G, Srinivasan A, Thin L, Thompson AJ, Welman CJ, Yong EXZ,
De Cruz P, van Langenberg D, Sparrow MP, Ding NS. Higher Anti-tumor Necrosis Factor-
# Levels Correlate With Improved Radiologic Outcomes in Crohn's Perianal Fistulas. Clin
Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 Jun;20(6):1306-1314. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.07.053. Epub 2021
Aug 11. PMID: 34389484.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02676-9 (2023)

Title: Prognostic Factors for the Efficacy of Infliximab in Patients with Luminal Fistulizing
Crohn’s Disease
Version: 2 Date: 04 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
authors have attempted to address topic with limited data retrospectively.  I would recomend
rejection of the article as there are major limitations in the methodology and analysis of the
available data
Major issues
There are many methodological  limitations in this  study for example
1. Aim of the study was to find prognostic factors over long term (however median follow up
was only 17 months). Information on smoking status, concomitant therapy like antibiotics and
drainage (50%) of the patients had abscess) are lacking, as IFX can not be started in patients
with active sepsis. surprisingly none of the patients with abscess and fistula had severe disease
and almost 30% were in clinical remission. how did author assess response  cases with clinical
remission. censoring of data due to poor follow up can give rise to partial observation which
may be incorrect
2. primary outcome could be either death or need for surgery
3. secondary outcome can't be differentiated from primary outcome
4. what was the event for which concordance  index was calculated ..surgery or death.
5. no mention of ethical clearance is mentioned in the study
minor issues
1. writing of paper can be improved in most of sections eg
discussion of results in methodology should not be done (median follow up). flow of writing is
not engaging and receptions can be avoided.
2. it will be inappropriate to form nomogram in such small sample size, retrospective study with
incomplete follow up
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02676-9 (2023)

Title: Prognostic Factors for the Efficacy of Infliximab in Patients with Luminal Fistulizing
Crohn’s Disease
Version: 3 Date: 31 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate authors for reappraising their manuscript. their are few corrections required
1. Would suggest to change   Prognostic markers instead of Prognosis in Aim of the study and
revise Prognosis factors to Prognostic Factors. ( Introduction Para 4)
1.  Manuscript says "According to the CDAI score, 9 cases were in clinical remission stage
(CDAI<150 points), 13 cases were in a mild active stage (150#CDAI<220 points), and 4 cases
were in moderate-to-severe active stage (CDAI#220 points) at baseline"
However the table 1 baseline disease activity may need corrections.
2. authors may want to correct this statement as non availability
"Due to the availability of data, serum IL-6 and TNF-# level and other indicators were not
collected and included in the analysis. Serum IFX concentration were also not included:
3. In Discussion BMI is written as BWI
4. Would suggest tailoring of discussion to according to the results of the study. Found very
limited discussion on secondary outcome of the study
5. 9 cases were in clinical remission at baseline and 12 cases in clinical remission at 3 and 6
months was in 12 and 14 respectively. How was remission assessed in such cases.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02679-6 (2023)

Title: Development of an immune-related gene prognostic risk model and identification of an
Immune infiltration signature in the tumor microenvironment of colon cancer
Version: 1 Date: 06 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
The author developed and validated twelve immune gene models for colon cancer, including
SLC10A2, FABP4, FGF2, CCL28, IGKV1-6, IGLV6-57, ESM1, UCN, UTS2, VIP, IL1RL2,
NGFR. This model can be used as a tool variable to predict the prognosis of colon cancer. This
research is very interesting, and the following small problems need attention:
1.The references in the background should preferably be from 2022.
2.The font of some pictures is too small.
3.The following documents should be cited:Applying immune-related lncRNA pairs to construct
a prognostic signature and predict the immune landscape of stomach adenocarcinoma
Advances in prognostic markers for colorectal cancer
SSR4 as a prognostic biomarker and related with immune infiltration cells in colon
adenocarcinoma
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02679-6 (2023)

Title: Development of an immune-related gene prognostic risk model and identification of an
Immune infiltration signature in the tumor microenvironment of colon cancer
Version: 1 Date: 23 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, the authors performed bioinformatic analysis in search of potential prognostic
biomarkers in tumor microenvironment of colon cancer. Specifically, the authors utilized
publicly available datasets and built a statistical model with immune-related gene signatures for
patient stratifications. The study, in general, represents a novel application of genomic data in
immuno-oncology research and might be of interest to a broad scope of audience. However, I
do have following comments:
Major:
1. I was confused about the data integration. In this study, the authors mentioned five data
sources: transcriptomics and clinical data from TCGA, immunogenic data from ImmPort, and
immune infiltration data from TIMER, TF from Cistrome, and immune cell content data from
timer.cistrome.org. Are these data from same patients/cohort? If no, they cannot be correlated
and analyzed in the same context. If yes, the author should mention it in the manuscript.
2. From my understanding, the authors defined ‘validation’ as using one bioinformatic model to
validate the results from others bioinformatic method outputs, which is cross-reference. There
is neither internal validation using cross-validation nor external validation using independent
cohort, adding significant limitations to the universality of this work. I suggest authors validate
their model on external dataset from other publicly available sources.
Minor:
1. Explain jargon at their first appearance (provide their full spelling). For example, FDR, logFC,
(line 100), HR (Hazard ratio?) at line 112.
2. Provide the environment for the packages utilized in the study, e.g., R or Python.
3. Provide proper reference to the software used in the study, e.g, cytoscape at line 108:
Shannon, Paul, et al. "Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular
interaction networks." Genome research 13.11 (2003): 2498-2504.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02675-w (2023)

Title: Identification of Inadequate Responders to Advanced Therapy Among Commercially-
Insured Adult Patients with Crohn’s Disease and Ulcerative Colitis in the United States
Version: 1 Date: 16 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, the authors investigated their modified claims-based algorithm in the IBD
patients to assess inadequate response to the advanced therapy within 1 year and reported more
than 60% of patients had an inadequate response with low adherence as the most common reason,
which was compatible with the previous investigation in other chronic inflammatory condition
such as RA. They also identified several factors to be associated with the inadequate response by
a multivariable logistic regression model. However, some factors such as baseline use of TNFi
(vs non-TNFi) in UC and gender, historical use of TNFi, health plan, and region in CD cannot
be reasonably explained only by biology. The authors should carefully discuss them.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02675-w (2023)

Title: Identification of Inadequate Responders to Advanced Therapy Among Commercially-
Insured Adult Patients with Crohn’s Disease and Ulcerative Colitis in the United States
Version: 1 Date: 19 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dr. Hunter et al investigated the frequency of inadequate response over 1 year from advanced
therapy initiation among patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) in the
United States using a claims-based algorithm. The authors showed that more than 60% of
patients with CD or UC had an inadequate response to their index advanced therapy within 1
year after initiation, mostly driven by low adherence. This highly novel study used a claim-based
algorithm to assess the frequency of inadequate response to advanced therapy.
However, I think this study's methodology and discussion contents still have some problems as
indicated below.
Major comments:
1. In this study, the definition of inadequate response was listed in Table 1.
The reviewer feels uncomfortable with this definition.
Low adherence to advanced therapy may cause inadequate response to advanced therapy,
however, I don’t think that low adherence to advanced therapy is not always a predictor of
inadequate response.
Low adherence (defined as proportion of days covered [PDC] < 80%) may also be due to
adequate response to advanced therapy.
I recommend you reconsider whether low adherence is always a predictor of inadequate response
and include it in the text.
2. In this study factors associated with inadequate response were investigated
and the result was described in the part of the Factors influencing inadequate response to
advanced therapy in the Results section. However, they were not mentioned in the discussion
part. I encourage you to consider these matters in the discussion part.
I hope these comments will be helpful.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02675-w (2023)

Title: Identification of Inadequate Responders to Advanced Therapy Among Commercially-
Insured Adult Patients with Crohn’s Disease and Ulcerative Colitis in the United States
Version: 3 Date: 06 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors devised an algorithm for inadequate response to 1-year advanced therapy in IBD
patients and identified several characteristics independently associated with inadequate response
both in CD and UC patients from one of claims data in US.
Although careful interpretations of data are needed because of its being retrospective analysis,
the authors reasonably included only those who newly started advanced therapy and the results
are generally consistent with what we already know about inadequate response to advanced
therapy from the cohort studies or clinical trials in IBD.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02675-w (2023)

Title: Identification of Inadequate Responders to Advanced Therapy Among Commercially-
Insured Adult Patients with Crohn’s Disease and Ulcerative Colitis in the United States
Version: 3 Date: 11 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has been revised well.
I think this manuscript will be acceptable.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02561-x (2023)

Title: High Diagnostic Yield Despite a Lower Completion Rates for Inpatient Versus Outpatient
Colon and Pan-Intestinal Capsule Endoscopy. A Nested Case Control Study.
Version: 3 Date: 12 Sep 2022
Reviewer:  Konosuke Nakaji
Reviewer's report:
It is a well-written article; however, there are some concerns about this article. 1. Please explain
in more  detail of  Pillcam Colon 2 system (e.g., AFR system  and general accuracy)
2. The authors could explain their bowel preparation and booster method in a table. 3. The
weakest point of this article might be that colon capsule endoscopy(CCE )and pan-intestinal
capsule(PIC) are mixed in the subjects. The small bowel sleep mode(AFR mode) was manually
deselected before capsule ingestion. This operation might influence the battery life of the
capsule. This might introduce an increasing incompletion rate of the PIC due to a lack of
battery. The authors should discuss this basis in the discussion. 4. In our country, CCE was only
performed as national health insurance coverage in outpatient settings. Therefore, it is an exciting
report. Is there any radio wave influence from the ECG monitor in this study? 5. Is this study
any minor or serious adverse events, including retention? 6. The article did not define adequate
cleaners level of CCE and PIC(e.g., 4-grade scale). I read great interesting to read this article.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02561-x (2023)

Title: High Diagnostic Yield Despite a Lower Completion Rates for Inpatient Versus Outpatient
Colon and Pan-Intestinal Capsule Endoscopy. A Nested Case Control Study.
Version: 3 Date: 05 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
I have attached a revision of your paper, mostly changing wording grammar abbreviations etc
and I advise you to reference 2 very relevant papers:
1. Yung DE, Plevris JN, Leenhardt R, Dray X, Koulaouzidis A; ESGE Small Bowel Research
Working Group. Poor Quality of Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy Images Has a Significant
Negative Effect in the Diagnosis of Small Bowel Malignancy. Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2020
Oct;13:475-484. doi: 10.2147/CEG.S260906
2. Yung DE, Koulaouzidis A, Douglas S, Plevris JN. Earlier use of capsule endoscopy
in inpatients with melena or severe iron deficiency anemia reduces need for colonoscopy
and shortens hospital stay. Endosc Int Open. 2018 Sep;6(9):E1075-E1084. doi: 10.1055/
a-0640-2956.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02561-x (2023)

Title: High Diagnostic Yield Despite a Lower Completion Rates for Inpatient Versus Outpatient
Colon and Pan-Intestinal Capsule Endoscopy. A Nested Case Control Study.
Version: 4 Date: 30 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Konosuke Nakaji
Reviewer's report:
Reasonable responses to reviewers' comments and revisions.  I hope the authors will study
further on capsule endoscopy.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02707-5 (2023)

Title: Effectiveness of eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection in Africa: A
systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 18 Nov 2022
Reviewer:  Hong Cheng
Reviewer's report:
Helicobacter pylori infection is associated with a variety of upper gastrointestinal diseases.
Eradication of H. pylori can reduce the risk of gastric cancer. Antibiotic resistance is an important
reason for eradication treatment failure. The authors investigated the H. pylori eradication
effectiveness in Africa using the best available evidence from databases. They analyzed the
cumulative eradication rate for Africa and identified factors associated with eradication. They
thought eradication studies in Africa are so rare that more research must be promoted.
There are some problems:
1 It is recommended to add eradication rate items in Table 2.
2 The research time span included in this analysis and research is relatively large. From 1992 to
2020, the impact of time on the research results should be considered when analyzing the results
of these studies. It is suggested to add relevant contents in the discussion section.
3 This study found that the eradication rate was different with different detection methods. What
are the possible reasons?
4 Please check whether the eradication rates of different regimens in Table 3 are correct. It is
suggested to increase the total number of patients and the number of eradicated cases for each
eradication rate item in Table 3.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02707-5 (2023)

Title: Effectiveness of eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection in Africa: A
systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 22 Jan 2023
Reviewer:  Bahman Razi
Reviewer's report:
Fekadu et al. performed a systematic review entitled “Effectiveness of eradication therapy for
Helicobacter pylori infection in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis”. I reviewed the
manuscript carefully and find some shortages which should be amended.
*The authors reported their funding in the abstract without p-value. It is a common scientific
mistake. All over the text amend this point.
* The abstract is too long and there are several unnecessary sentences. Please rewrote the
abstract.
* As you know the regimen for eradication therapy consist of different antibiotic. In your
manuscript all included studies used the same regimen?
*As the author reported a new network meta-analysis published in 2022 entitled “Worldwide and
Regional Efficacy Estimates of First-line Helicobacter pylori Treatments: A Systematic Review
and Network Meta-Analysis” the clearly and with details discussed about kind of regimen and
all other point. What is the priority of your work?
* What the authors mean from this sentence? “The African studies differ in study settings,
methodology, and other characteristics” what is the point of difference??
* The authors reported the results of a strong network meta-analysis (which included African
studies). However, in the next line said “there is no pooled eradication rate consisting of
observational and randomized controlled trials for H. pylori infection in Africa”. As you know
the network meta-analysis are more reliable studies than systematic review ana meta-analysis.
* There is no need to include details of search strategy in main text. Present as supplementary
file.
* Order studies in table 2 based on publication year.
*According to the  table 2 different studies used different regimen. How do you pool them in
overall analysis and subgroups? This could be correct while a standard protocol confirms that
for example: OAC regimen with defined dosage and duration time is similar to OAM regimen
with defined dosage and duration time. Otherwise, analysis of them is not correct from statistical
perspective.
*The results of subgroup analysis in type of regimen are ambiguous.
*Discussion is incomplete.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02671-0 (2023)

Title: The relationship between the use of metformin and the risk of pancreatic cancer in patients
with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 17 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
Very interesting study. My main concern is on the lack of a time-dependent analysis. The crude
OR doesn't take into account the timespan of the effect of metformin on cancer incidence......one
year of metformin therapy is not the same of 10 year of metformin therapy....how can the authors
assess this issue?
Also, i recommend to cite the effect of these drugs (metformin, statins, and other similar drugs)
on the incidence of other cancers (cite PMID: 32260179 )
Also, the authors should cite how the use of these drugs change the epidemiologic scenario of
abdominal cancers (cite PMID: 33219585)
Finally the authors should cite the influence of diabetes on the incidence of several abdominal
cancers (cite PMID: 23845075 )
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02671-0 (2023)

Title: The relationship between the use of metformin and the risk of pancreatic cancer in patients
with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 27 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
An upcoming and pertinent area of research with data being available for a decade or so.
The following are suggested to improve the manuscript:
1. The effect of Metformin on Pancreatic Cancer is required to be highlighted in the introduction
rather than diabetes
2. The results need a better description to enhance reader comprehension
3. The discussion also needs to be improves with comparison with more of available literature.
The following maybe added and discussed:
a. Shi YQ, Zhou XC, Du P, Yin MY, Xu L, Chen WJ, Xu CF. Relationships are between
metformin use and survival in pancreatic cancer patients concurrent with diabetes: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Sep 11;99(37):e21687. doi: 10.1097/
MD.0000000000021687. PMID: 32925714; PMCID: PMC7489714.
b. Zhou PT, Li B, Liu FR, Zhang MC, Wang Q, Li YY, Xu C, Liu YH, Yao Y, Li D.
Metformin is associated with survival benefit in pancreatic cancer patients with diabetes:
a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2017 Apr 11;8(15):25242-25250. doi:
10.18632/oncotarget.15692. PMID: 28445955; PMCID: PMC5421925.
c. Yin M, Zhou J, Gorak EJ, Quddus F. Metformin is associated with survival benefit
in cancer patients with concurrent type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Oncologist. 2013;18(12):1248-55. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2013-0111. Epub 2013 Nov 20.
PMID: 24258613; PMCID: PMC3868417.
d. Amin S, Mhango G, Lin J, Aronson A, Wisnivesky J, Boffetta P, Lucas AL. Metformin
Improves Survival in Patients with Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma and Pre-Existing
Diabetes: A Propensity Score Analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016 Sep;111(9):1350-7. doi:
10.1038/ajg.2016.288. Epub 2016 Jul 19. PMID: 27430290; PMCID: PMC5041138.
e. Terasaki F, Sugiura T, Okamura Y, Ito T, Yamamoto Y, Ashida R, Ohgi K, Uesaka
K. Oncological benefit of metformin in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and
comorbid diabetes mellitus. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2020 May;405(3):313-324. doi: 10.1007/
s00423-020-01874-3. Epub 2020 May 4. PMID: 32367394.
f. Gong J, Robbins LA, Lugea A, Waldron RT, Jeon CY and Pandol SJ (2014) Diabetes,
pancreatic cancer, and metformin therapy. Front. Physiol. 5:426. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2014.00426
g. Yu H, Zhong X, Gao P, Shi J, Wu Z, Guo Z, Wang Z and Song Y (2019) The Potential
Effect of Metformin on Cancer: An Umbrella Review. Front. Endocrinol. 10:617. doi: 10.3389/
fendo.2019.00617
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02671-0 (2023)

Title: The relationship between the use of metformin and the risk of pancreatic cancer in patients
with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 4 Date: 23 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
All issues addressed
The  term hypoglycemic effect of Metformin should be rephrased
The conclusion needs to be improved
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02680-z (2023)

Title: Interactive training vs. self-driven training in the prediction of colorectal polyp histology
by trainees using the NICE classification
Version: 1 Date: 10 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
- The article provides a comparison of self-driven and interactive learning methods for the polyp
classification.
-  The article is well written.
- The evaluation is done thoroughly.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02680-z (2023)

Title: Interactive training vs. self-driven training in the prediction of colorectal polyp histology
by trainees using the NICE classification
Version: 1 Date: 05 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting comparison study. I feel significant effort has gone into making this study.
However, I feel that some methodologies of this study are ambiguous. I hope that my comment
is very useful for the improvement of the article.
1) There are some studies for endoscopic training comparing self or interactive such as PMID:
30844114, PMID: 28945617, and ref 10. Did this study have different results or findings than
these?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02677-8 (2023)

Title: ARL9 is Upregulated and Serves as a Biomarker for a Poor Prognosis in Colon
Adenocarcinoma
Version: 1 Date: 07 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Mansoor-ali Vaali-mohammed
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author
Manuscript describes well that  ARL9 mRNA is upregulated and serves as a Biomarker in Colon
adenocarcinoma.
The following steps should provide more clear information in the manuscript.
1) Please provide Clinicopathological data of ARL9 in 437 colon adenocarcinoma samples.
2) In the materials section – please clearly mention catalog number, company name and
restructured the materials and methods section including western blotting.
3) Figure 7 – mentioned in Tubulin control antibody but in the manuscript GAPDH?. Please
provide densitometry analysis.
4) ARL9 knockdown experiments – only HCT116 CRC cell lines are used, minimum TWO
CRC cell lines are required to understand well.
5) Please carefully check through the manuscript regarding grammatical errors etc.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02677-8 (2023)

Title: ARL9 is Upregulated and Serves as a Biomarker for a Poor Prognosis in Colon
Adenocarcinoma
Version: 1 Date: 12 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
The present paper is a very interesting and exciting study. The manuscript is well written and
structured. The analyses and images of the research are appropriate, and the methodology is
adequate for the topic. The results documentation well supports the points of discussion as well
as the modest conclusions. It would be suitable for publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02677-8 (2023)

Title: ARL9 is Upregulated and Serves as a Biomarker for a Poor Prognosis in Colon
Adenocarcinoma
Version: 4 Date: 12 Feb 2023
Reviewer:  Mansoor-ali Vaali-mohammed
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors
Your responses are very well structured.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02678-7 (2023)

Title: The global, regional, and national burden of appendicitis in 204 countries and territories,
1990–2019: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 Running title:
the Global Burden of appendicitis 2019
Version: 0 Date: 10 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Archith Boloor
Reviewer's report:
Was only biopsy proven appendicitis included?
Any imaging modalities used for diagnosis? If so what definitions used?
Sub acute appendicitis usually undergo medical management. Were these cases included?
Were incidental biopsy proven appendicitis with no clinical symptoms included?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02678-7 (2023)

Title: The global, regional, and national burden of appendicitis in 204 countries and territories,
1990–2019: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 Running title:
the Global Burden of appendicitis 2019
Version: 0 Date: 22 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  David Laith Rawaf
Reviewer's report:
77 - worth expanding on this point? Advancements in technology, approaches, antibiotics,
management criteria, etc.
Diagnosis very difficult without visualisation of appendix. Perhaps future work on diagnostic
tools to avoid surgery would be beneficial.
More emphasis on diagnosis & treatment - namely on utilising education and training
(simulation) to quickly and safely grow the workforce to a standardised level of competency
across all regions. Focus should be on minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in order to reduce
anaesthetic time, injury, hospital stay and complication rates.
Overall good landmark paper.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02678-7 (2023)

Title: The global, regional, and national burden of appendicitis in 204 countries and territories,
1990–2019: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 Running title:
the Global Burden of appendicitis 2019
Version: 3 Date: 29 Jan 2023
Reviewer:  Archith Boloor
Reviewer's report:
Answers to the queries asked have been appropriately addressed
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02678-7 (2023)

Title: The global, regional, and national burden of appendicitis in 204 countries and territories,
1990–2019: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 Running title:
the Global Burden of appendicitis 2019
Version: 3 Date: 13 Feb 2023
Reviewer:  David Laith Rawaf
Reviewer's report:
Edits in line with comments. Good paper and ready for publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02682-x (2023)

Title: Frequency, outcomes, and need for intervention in stricturing gastrointestinal
tuberculosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 22 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
1. The title and abstract cover the main aspect of the systematic review.
2. The introduction provide background and information relevant to the study.
3.The definition of study population (abdominal TB or intestinal TB or both) is not unclear, the
author need to make an specific explanation.
4.The criterion of clinical response and stricture response after ATT is yet not unclear, author
should be write in detail and the reference should be included.
5.What are standards for the patients of intervention required in stricturing GITB i.e surgery or
endoscopic dilatation? It is not unclear in the paper.
6.The results are some novels, but the study does not provide a good evidence-based the clinic
data. So there are certain limitations to the systematic review.
7. The findings described by the author correlate with the results and the findings are relevant.
8. “However, we could not analyse the frequency of the involvement of various sites and
response to ATT because of variable definitions of site and lack of data regarding response” and
“It is unclear if preoperative evaluation using imaging could differentiate inflammatory strictures
from fibrotic strictures and therefore predict response to ATT.” --This paragraph should be
placed in the limitations section.
9. The conclusions correlate to the results found.