JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-18 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:First attack of acute pancreatitis in Sweden 1988 - 2003: incidence,
aetiological classification, procedures and mortality - a register study
Version: 2Date:15 January 2009
Reviewer: Raffaele Pezzilli
Reviewer's report:
Minor comment
Page 11 line 14: the citation should be corrected [3]. instead of [[3]..
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 have no conflicts of interest
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-18 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:First attack of acute pancreatitis in Sweden 1988 - 2003: incidence,
aetiological classification, procedures and mortality - a register study
Version: 2Date:20 January 2009
Reviewer: Masahiko Hirota
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions
1. What does "PAR" stand for (p.2, 4th paragraph)? If it is the abbreviation
for "Hospital Discharge Register", it is supposed to be "HDR".
2. Other abbreviations, such as CFR and SMR, should also be checked. There
are
reperated descriptions about the full spell and abbreviation.
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-9-17 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Gastroparesis is associated with oxytocin deficiency, oesophageal
dysmotility with hyperCCKemia, and autonomic neuropathy with
hypergastrinemia
Version: 1Date:20 October 2008
Reviewer: PAULUS S. WANG
Reviewer's report:
General Comments:
The purpose of this study is to investigate if the plasma concentration of oxytocin,
cholecystokinin(CCK), gastrin and vasopressin differ between diabetic patients
with gastrointestinal(GI)normal function and dysfunction. This is an interesting
topic and worthy to publish but it requires minor revisions.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
The length of introduction seems too short. It is known that gastroparesis is one
of the best examples of diabetic GI disturbances. However, the reason why the
hormone concentrations of plasma in relation to oesophageal dysmotility and
autonomic neuropathy were observed was not mentioned. The authors should
make a brief statement on the relationship in diabetic GI disturbances. That will
make the purpose of the present study more clear.
In this study, authors show that patients with diabetes mellitus and normal gastric
emptying have a postprandial promotion in oxytocin secretion. There is no
significant difference in postprandial CCK or gastrin secretion in patients with and
without delayed gastric emptying. However, in patients with oesophageal
dysmotility the basal concentration of CCK tend to be higher, and with autonomic
neuropathy the gastrin concentrations were increased.
Minor Essential Revisions
Figure
Page17,Reference 15, the "et al." shouldbe replaced with the complete author's
name.
Page25, Figure 1C, the gastrinpeak group has missed upper
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-9-17 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Gastroparesis is associated with oxytocin deficiency, oesophageal
dysmotility with hyperCCKemia, and autonomic neuropathy with
hypergastrinemia
Version: 1Date:11 November 2008
Reviewer: Henry P Parkman
Reviewer's report:
A well done study that looks at hormonal factors in diabetic gastroparesis.
comments.
1. Gastroparesis is one word, not two.
2. needs proofreading as there is an extraneous phrase in the results section.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-16 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Serum procalcitonin and CRP levels in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease
Version: 1Date:29 August 2008
Reviewer: Claudio Tiribelli
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
The Ms reports the comparison of the serum level of 2 acute phase reactive
proteins (CRP and PCT) in a series of subjects with histologically proven fatty
liver equally distributed between NALFL and NASH compared with controls. Data
show no difference either in the CRP or PTC level while fatty liver collectively
showed an higher level of CRP. The data are of little interests since they are
merely observational with no hints on the reason(s) to explain what observed. In
addition to this severe and structural problem, other points need to be addressed:
1. The number of patients enrolled was 50 but no information is given on the total
number of potentially eligible subjects observed in the 7 year period. This is
important to avoid possible selection bias.
2. Why in Tables the total number of patients is 47 while the number of 50 is
reported in the text? Where the missing 3 are left and why?
3. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the 47 patients but not of the 50 controls.
This needs to be added to allow comparison.
4. The meaning of the correlation reported in Table 3 and at page 5 is of limited
meaning, at best. I suggest either removal or a more detailed analysis performed
by a trained biostatistician.
5. The discussion is by far too long and does not address and discuss what
found
Level of interest: An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a
scientific/medical journal
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-9-16 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Serum procalcitonin and CRP levels in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease
Version: 1Date:1 September 2008
Reviewer: Giovanni Tarantino
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
Abstract: Please, change commas in points when giving values.
Introduction: Please, at page 3 line 4 the term "changes" should be substituted
by the world "ranges". Reference 4 in this place is not precise. Postpone it at
page 5 together with references 16 and 17. CHOOSE AT THAT LEVEL
ANOTHER ONE MORE COMPATIBLE.
Methods: In statistic, please add paired to Student’s t-test, being your study a
case control one.
Discussion: Please, emphasize the limitation, i.e.,...... Although we did not
evaluate....... creating a sentence specific.
Abbreviations: Please, expand them to all the acronyms.
Table: Please, add legends and in Table 3 specify the value of p.
Figure: Please, point out if it is drawn from one of your studied patients.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-16 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Serum procalcitonin and CRP levels in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease
Version: 1Date:17 September 2008
Reviewer: Hans Spangenberg
Reviewer's report:
The paper by Oruc et al. examines for the first time the procalcitonin levels in
patients with NAFLD. As an additional marker thy investigate CRP. Interestingly
they found no correlation of procalcitonin with steatohepatitis and/or steatosis,
however for CRP a statistical significant difference between healthy controls and
patient with histological proven steatohepatitis/steatosis was observed.
A few comments that should be addressed by the authors prior to publication.
1. The healthy controls are not well describe. They should be added in table 1
and all makers that are addressed for the NAFLD-group should be included.
2. 47 patients with NAFLD are analysed not 50, this should be corrected.
3. How was an infection in the patients excluded? For most of the papers in
patients with metabolic syndrome hs-CRP was used as a marker, why not in this
study?
4. The BMI is higher in the steatosis group. Does the BMI per se influence the
level of CRP?
5. In table 3 the NAFLD-group is not differentiated into steatohepatitis and
steatosis. This should be adopted.
In general, the authors should rule out by multiple regression analysis that any
other maker than the difference between steatosis/steatohepatitis and healthy
controls is responsible for their explanation. Furthermore it should be discussed
in more detail why the steatosis group has lower CRP levels than the
steatohepatitis group. One would assume that inflammation in the liver triggers
CRP. At last it would be interesting to see if the authors can also detect CRP and
procalitonin in ther liver histologies and this finding could be correlatd with the
serum levels.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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-9-16 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Serum procalcitonin and CRP levels in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease
Version: 2Date:21 November 2008
Reviewer: Giovanni Tarantino
Reviewer's report:
I am satisfied.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-16 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Serum procalcitonin and CRP levels in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease
Version: 2Date:3 December 2008
Reviewer: Hans Spangenberg
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed the points that have been pointed out by the
reviewers in a sufficient manner, although the the way the rebuttal is wittn is of
insufficient quality.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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-9-15 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Probiotics in the treatment of
Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Version: 2Date:12 June 2008
Reviewer: Lisa Conboy
Reviewer's report:
This article is important and well-accomplished. I have only a few minor
comments.
1-In the abstract, "Longer terms trials are recommended" the "L" should not be a
capital letter.
2-In Literature search section please tell the teader when the searching was
done; months and year.
3-Page 5 first paragraph offers Bittner as the example of an excluded study.
Please tell the reader an example of how studies may have not treated the
groups equally and then end sentence with Bittner citation.
4-In the limitations mention why the readers were not blinded to the citation
information and waht bias might be introduced because of this.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest 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-9-15 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Probiotics in the treatment of
Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Version: 2Date:21 June 2008
Reviewer: Sue Wilson
Reviewer's report:
This is a well conducted systematic review which is topical and will be of wide
interest. The limitations are appropriately acknowledged.
Major point:
Page 5: “Non English language publications were excluded” – why was this
done? Are there relevant publications in other languages? What potential bias
has the exclusion of these studies generated?
Minor points:
Page 4: “where possible, lead researchers were contacted for further details” –
does this mean all were contacted but only some responded?
Page 7: It would be useful if the reasons for the 8 exclusions was added
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:
Competing interests: have recently completed a trial of probiotics for IBS
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-15 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Probiotics in the treatment of
Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Version: 2Date:5 July 2008
Reviewer: Eamonn M M Quigley
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Page 5 and elsewhere. "Flatulence" is NOT a primary or secondary symptom
of IBS and is not included in any of the definitions of IBS for the very good reason
that bloating (which is an IBS symptom) and flatulence are very different in
pathophysiology. The inclusion of flatulence in this discussion of IBS is
misleading and symptom scores that incorporate flatulence should be
discounted. In contrast, symptoms related to difficulty with bowel movements
(urgency, difficult defecation) which ARE major IBS symptoms are not discussed
or included in the analysis (page 8).
2. Page 12. Incorrectly refer to the O'Mahony study as a cross-over study which it
is not.
3. Page 12. Here refer to the studies referred to as refs 20 and 30 as
non-significant yet go on on page 14 to detail the issues related to ref 30
(Whorwell et al) and thr fact that one dose in ref 30 was significant. Specifically,
this meta-analysis does not take account of the fact that this particular study was
a dose-ranging study and would have been deliberately designed to include a
lower dose that would not work!
4. Table 2. I am surprised by the low scores for Kim (from the Mayo clinic) and
Whorwell (the largest study). What issues did these studies have with
randomization and concealment of allocation?
5. Figure 3. Which dose from the Whorwell study was included here?
6. Figs 4-6. Why were all studies not included here?
Minor Essential Revisions
O'Mahony is mis-spelt in a number of locations.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have received honoraria and research support from Procter and Gamble, the
manufacturers of Align and am President of the World Gastroenterology
Organisation which has received unrestricted support from Danone.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-15 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Probiotics in the treatment of
Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Version: 4Date:18 October 2008
Reviewer: Eamonn M M Quigley
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your responses which are most helpful. I still have soem niggling
issues:
1. I remain troubled by your definition of a the primary outcome to include "pain,
flatulence, bloating, anxiety and QOL". While it is clear that you insist on adhering
to this definition, you must make it absolutely clear that this is your own concept
and at odds with all other clinical and clinical research definitions of IBS that I am
aware of.
2. I am still unclear in regard to how you selected studies for analysis and
presentation of individual symptoms: pain, flatulence and bloating. Did you only
select (as the opening line of each of these sections suggests) those studies that
reported significant improvement in these symptoms. Surely, this would have
been an odd approach.
Minor point: Kajander is mis-spelt in the tables
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:
Already declared
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-13 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Transcript levels of different cytokines and chemokines correlate with
clinical and endoscopic activity in ulcerative colitis
Version: 1Date:1 February 2008
Reviewer: Takafumi Ando
Reviewer's report:
They made it clear that low clinical and endoscopic activity was accompanied by
low cytokine levels whereas high CAI and EAI were associated with high cytokine
levels. From their data they concluded that real-time PCR quantification of IL-8,
IP10, MRP14 and MIP2 in colonic biopsies is a simple and valid method for
grading inflammation of intestinal mucosa in UC. IL-8, IP10, MRP14 and MIP2
might be used as biomarkers and thus as an objective tool especially in clinical
trials to evaluate anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory regimens. However,
the simplest evaluation is CAI, and it does not seem that their method is
advantageous in that we exceed it in the method how their trouble and money
suffer from.
What next?: Reject because scientifically unsound
Level of interest: An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a
scientific/medical journal
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-9-13 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Transcript levels of different cytokines and chemokines correlate with
clinical and endoscopic activity in ulcerative colitis
Version: 2Date:10 April 2008
Reviewer: Takafumi Ando
Reviewer's report:
It has been revised correctly.
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-9-13 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Transcript levels of different cytokines and chemokines correlate with
clinical and endoscopic activity in ulcerative colitis
Version: 2Date:22 April 2008
Reviewer: Giuliano Ramadori
Reviewer's report:
All points of criticism/concern have been answered adequately.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-13 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Transcript levels of different cytokines and chemokines correlate with
clinical and endoscopic activity in ulcerative colitis
Version: 3Date:7 November 2008
Reviewer: Stig Larsen
Reviewer's report:
It is much better but they can not conclude as they do. They conclude that the
method is "Valid and reliable".
In order to claim Validity and reliability of a method they need to give sensitivity
and spesifisity of the method. This might be problematic in this case. However, I
will recommand them to express CAI and EAI as a linear function of the set of
independant variables (CXCL2,8,10 and calgranulin B). Additionally, by reporting
R2 they will give how much of the variation of CAI and EAI are expressed by the
set of independant variables. Then it might be they can give a conclusion like the
one they have in the manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-13 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Transcript levels of different cytokines and chemokines correlate with
clinical and endoscopic activity in ulcerative colitis
Version: 4Date:24 December 2008
Reviewer: Stig Larsen
Reviewer's report:
I think it can be published in this form, but I would have taken the results from the
multiple linear regression into the abstract.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-14 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Heat Shock Protein-27, -60 and -90 expression in gastric cancer:
association with clinicopathological variables and patient survival
Version: 1Date:8 May 2008
Reviewer: Gabriele Multhoff
Reviewer's report:
BMC Gastroentereology
MS by Stamatios Theocharis
The findings in the Ms reveal an association of Hsp27, 60 and 90 expression in
gastric cancer (n=66) with clinicoapthological parameters. The data are
predominantly based on immunohistochemical studies.
In the discussion part the authors also include data from Hsp70 analyses,
however these data are not shown as results in the manuscript.
The data are important with respect to the identification of new prognostic
markers. However, the Ms would improve by including some additional
informations
Figure 1: Could data of stainings with isotype-matched control antibodies be
included
Is it possible to show data for Hsp70 and Hsp40 immunohistochemical analyses.
What is the association between intracellular and extracellular HSPs.
Is it possible to show examples of high and low expression of the HSPs in
comparison.
Did the authors measure the HSPs in the serum of the patients and if so is there
a link between intracellular and extarcellular HSP levels.
Discussion: Could the authors provide some more ideas about the physiological
role of the increased HSP levels in gastric cancer.
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 competeing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-14 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Heat Shock Protein-27, -60 and -90 expression in gastric cancer:
association with clinicopathological variables and patient survival
Version: 1Date:28 May 2008
Reviewer: Oliver Stoeltzing
Reviewer's report:
The study by Giaginis et al. “Heat Shock Protein-27, -60 and -90 expression in
gastric cancer: association with clinicopathological variables and patient survival”
investigated the expression of distinct HSPs, which are being implicated in
cancer progression, in human tissues of gastric adenocarcinomas. The authors
found that HSP-27, HSP-60, HSP-90 proteins were expressed in gastric
adenocarcinoma specimens. Expression of HSP-27 was significantly associated
with tumor size and the presence of organ metastasis. HSP-90 expression was
not associated with any of the clinicopathological parameters. Surprisingly, high
HSP-90 expression was significantly associated with longer overall survival
times.
Interesting study, especially the fact that Hsp90 expression is associated with an
improved survival is somewhat intriguing. This finding actually demands further
attention, as it could imply that loss of chaperoning (i.e. Hsp90) leads to a more
aggressive phenotype, hence leading to poor prognosis (and resistance to
therapy?). The paper would therefore substantially be improved if authors could
provide data on differences in Hsp90 client protein expression (HER2, EGFR?...)
in these tissues.
Specific comments: Minor Essential Revisions
1. Methods: it is not clear what authors mean with “expression” versus “staining
intensity”, and the relevance of this distinction. Why were two rating systems
applied? I strongly suggest using only one rating system and performing
adequate analysis of relevant variables. In addition, the rationale for the arbitrary
cut-off threshold for Hsp expression (52% vs 48%) is not clear. The authors need
to explain,, or refine this threshold in terms of using one cut-off value throughout
the manuscript (i..e. 50%?).
2. Significant data on “sex” and “age” do not appear to be important variables,
otherwise authors need to explain why this finding is really clinically relevant. I
would suggest omitting these data.
3. What is the clinical significance of Hsp60 expression? This remains unclear. In
addition, Ki-67 staining does not provide any significant information as it does not
correlate with staining. This needs to be addressed or omitted.
4. Tables are very large and contain too many non-relevant data. Authors should
focus and revise. (again using one rating system is sufficient).
5. Figure 1: this figure should be optimized in terms of presenting staining of
normal and tumor tissues of both intestinal and diffuse type cancers, and at two
magnifications (inserts).
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: 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-9-14 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Heat Shock Protein-27, -60 and -90 expression in gastric cancer:
association with clinicopathological variables and patient survival
Version: 1Date:31 July 2008
Reviewer: Yuanyuan Xiao
Reviewer's report:
I think the article by Giaginis et al. is well written, and their statistical analysis
regarding the association of the intensity / expression of HSPs with clinical
variable and survival is also appropriately conducted. I did not find any major
issues that need modifications, but there is one minor issue concerning the small
sample sizes of some of Chi-square tests (Table 1-3), which will need an exact
test or continuity correction to derive more accurate p values. From the
descriptions in the method section, it does not appear that the authors have done
that.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-14 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Heat Shock Protein-27, -60 and -90 expression in gastric cancer:
association with clinicopathological variables and patient survival
Version: 2Date:3 October 2008
Reviewer: Yuanyuan Xiao
Reviewer's report:
The authors have responded to all my queries satisfactorily.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-14 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Heat Shock Protein-27, -60 and -90 expression in gastric cancer:
association with clinicopathological variables and patient survival
Version: 2Date:7 October 2008
Reviewer: Oliver Stoeltzing
Reviewer's report:
Zhe manuscript "Heat Shock Protein-27, -60 and -90 expression in gastric
cancer: association with clinicopathological variables and patient survival" by
Giaginis et al. has been revised and additional analyses have been performed.
The current version appears to be acceptable for publication, as the major points
have been adressed.
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-9-12 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:A randomised controlled trial of structured nurse-led outpatient clinic
follow-up for dyspeptic patients after direct access gastroscopy.
Version: 1Date:30 July 2008
Reviewer: Christine Norton
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-written and planned study. However, the following issues need to
be addressed:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Table 1 and text: need to report if there were any significant difference
between groups at baseline (p values). It is not legitimate to sum the scores of
teh SF12. How many units qualified as "a drinker"? Not clear how UHD costs
were calculated - make this explicit in text.
2. Table 2: make it explicit how the adjustment for baseline was made.
3. How many visits did the intervention involve. Approximate cost of the
intervention? How many investigations were ordered by the nurse (and what
were the criteria for "if required". What was the cost and what did the tests find
(ie were there many positive or negative tests ordered?).
4. Explain more about the pilot stdy and what it found as the basis for the sample
size calculation
5. Costs of UHDs: was this patient self report recall? is it legitimate to average
across classes? Months UHDs used: this is also recall, is this prescribed or
actually used. Did use need to be continuous and how was PRN medication use
handled?
6. How many patinets were approached to participate (it is hard to believe that
100% consented?)
7. page 6: paragraph 2: make it clear that this is patient report of what they
recalled at telephone interview at 6 months: it is not possible to state that they did
or did not have information, just that they recalled
8. Patterns of drug use page 7: need to make the primary comparison between
the 2 groups at follow up. Can also report before-after changes separately for
both groups.
9. Was there any suggestion of a difference between those who did/did not
attend GP follow up?
Minor Essential Revisions
1. page 2: NICE is "of" not in
2. page 3: meaning of concordance finalised?
3. Make it clear that Gladys score increase = worsened symptoms?
4. reference 29 incomplete?
Discretionary Revisions
1. Tables 3 & 4 has too much detail - could summarise
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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-9-12 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:A randomised controlled trial of structured nurse-led outpatient clinic
follow-up for dyspeptic patients after direct access gastroscopy.
Version: 1Date:9 August 2008
Reviewer: Deborah Vincent
Reviewer's report:
Very intersting and important article. Just a few comments.
p3 - 1st complete paragraph - line 10 It is unclear who telephoned the secretary
for the radnomization. Its probably the PI but could be the patient.
p3 2nd paragraph - more detail would be helpful here. It says " clinical
management was based on guidelines". How did the researchers check this?
Where there any meaures or processes to check if the GNPs actually adhered to
the guidelines? What is "bespoke information"?
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 delcare I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-12 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:A randomised controlled trial of structured nurse-led outpatient clinic
follow-up for dyspeptic patients after direct access gastroscopy.
Version: 2Date:31 October 2008
Reviewer: Deborah Vincent
Reviewer's report:
The statistics appear to be straightforward (descriptive) but I do admit that I don't
know much about intent to treat analysis. In looking this over again, I think it
might help if authors mentioned what statistical tests they used. t-test for
example. I could have missed that on this read as I did it quickly. Other than that
it seems ok.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-12 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:A randomised controlled trial of structured nurse-led outpatient clinic
follow-up for dyspeptic patients after direct access gastroscopy.
Version: 2Date:24 November 2008
Reviewer: Christine Norton
Reviewer's report:
The analysis of this paper is much improved, thank you.
Minor essential revisions:
1. It is still not clear at which point informed consent was taken: the flow chart
reads as if this was before screening for eligibility (as 21 were exluded after
being recruited)? Please make clear in text and flow chart.
2. Please calrify if patinets randomised to GP arm were advised to visit their GP
for follow up routinely, or was it left to the GP to call the patient for review?
3. Page 7, intervention: there is a word missing in "Three in GP group not to see
their GP" - is this did not want to see their GP? Please correct.
4. Page 8: was any information available about costs of further tests ordered by
the nurse or cost of surgery? If not make it clear that these costs are excluded
from the cost analysis.
5. Page 8-9 patterns of drug use: what do the figures for drug use of 1.5 and 1.7
refer to?
6. Costs are likley to balance with additional costs of nurse, especially if this was
a long consult. + cost savings would not be reaslised in practice - would not
employ less GPs.
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-9-11 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Predictors of Esophageal Varices in Patients With HBV-related Cirrhosis: A
retrospective study
Version: 1Date:8 September 2008
Reviewer: Roberto de Franchis
Reviewer's report:
The topic of predicting the presence of esophageal varices in patients with
cirrhosis before doing endoscopy is an important one, because, if an adequate
method could be developed for this task, this could greatly decrease the
workload of endoscopy units.
The paper by Hong et al. is yet another attempt to tackle this goal, and suffers
from the same limitations of several previous studies.
The Authors should be commended for a thorough statistical evaluation of the
performance of their model; however, some points need discussion:
Major compulsory revisions
1. The population is largely composed of patients with decompensated cirrhosis,
and only partially reflects the population in which an index to predict the presence
of varices would be mostly applied in clinical practice, i.e. patients enrolled at the
time of the diagnosis of cirrhosis. This might have artificially increased the
performance of the prognostic index, and should be mentioned in the discussion.
2. The performance characteristics of the index are globally modest: the AUROC
is inferior to that of other indexes such as the platelet count/spleen diameter ratio
(Giannini et al, ref. 4) or CT esophagography (see Kim et al Radiology
2007;242:759-768). This should be mentioned in the discussion
3. The other parameters, listed in Table 4, are also modest: the positive
likelihood ratios of the different cut-off values are rather low, and the negative
likelihood ratios are too high (except for the cut-off -0.3052; however the
specificity for this cut-off is extremely low). This should also be discussed
4. The study is retrospective. Prospective validation in an independent patient
population is mandatory. This is mentioned in the discussion, but the Authors
should state clearly that until this is done, the model should not be used as a
substitute for endoscopy.
Minor compulsory revisions
Table 2: Males (%) and Ascites (%). In reality, the actual numbers and not the %
are given
The English language needs careful checking (e.g. results, page 6, 3rd line from
bottom: I think that “dominated” really means “denominated”; page 7 , 5th line
from top: “significantly higher than platelet count” should be “significantly higher
than that for platelet count”. Similar corrections must be done in several parts
throughout the text)
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
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-11 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Predictors of Esophageal Varices in Patients With HBV-related Cirrhosis: A
retrospective study
Version: 2Date:28 November 2008
Reviewer: Roberto de Franchis
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions:
The Authors have responded to my remarks. However, re-checking of the
English language by a native English speaker and eliminating typographical
errors is still mandatory: here are some examples:
• page 6, 3rd line from bottom: “dominated” should be “denominated”
• Page 7, 3rd line from bottom of the Results section, and Page 8, line 23 from
top: “ov” should be “ EV”
• page 8, 7th line from top: “160000/mm3” should be “160000/mm3exponential “
• page 8, lines 8-9 from top: “Until recently, a conflict result was revealed..”
should be “Recently, a conflicting result was reported”
• Page 8, 2nd line from bottom: “date” should be “data”
Many more similar errors exist throughout the text
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
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-11 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Predictors of Esophageal Varices in Patients With HBV-related Cirrhosis: A
retrospective study
Version: 2Date:10 December 2008
Reviewer: Edoardo Giovanni Giannini
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revision
1. The Authors now show Child-Pugh class distribution of the study cohort
(n=146) in Table 1. However, the Child-Pugh class distribution of the whole
series reflects the C-P distribution of patients with oesophageal varices (i.e.,
26%, 50%, and 24%). Likely an error has occurred while computing data. On the
basis of data contained in Table 1, prevalence of varices should be 67% in C-P
class A patients, 78% in class B patients, and 75% in class C patients.
Furthemore, the Authors report that 109 patients had varices, although when
they break down prevalence of varices according to C-P classification (A vs B+C)
they report 83+25 (=108) patients.
2. Results section, first paragraph, last line: these are not "normal values" for
portal vein diameter but rather the pathologic values observed in the study
population.
3. The Discussion section is actually too long. The Authors should focus on their
results, and discuss the strong and weak points of their study. Indeed, they found
a very high prevalence in Child-Pugh class A patients (i.e., 67%), and this likely
accounts for the absence of significantly difference for this item.
Minor Essential Revisions.
1. DC (diagnostic accuracy) should be DA in all tables.
2. Page 9, lines 5-13: these statements are a repetition of the results contained in
Table 5, and can therefore be deleted without loss of information.
3. "Child-Pugh" should be correctly spelled throughout the whole manuscript.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-10 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Development of an educational intervention for patients with Irritable Bowel
Syndrome (IBS) - a pilot study.
Version: 1Date:19 August 2008
Reviewer: Stefan A Mueller-Lissner
Reviewer's report:
My reviewers comment is as follows:
" An intensive program was developed to teach IBS patients about causes,
pathophysiology, prognosis, and management of their disorder. Twelve patients
completed the program. They felt much better and rated the teaching program
positive over the observation period of 12 months.
* This is an interesting teaching program confirming similar but less intense
approaches. As the authors themselves state more objective data such as health
care expenditures during follow-up should be obtained in a larger and controlled
trial.
* The reference list with 60 titles seems unduly long."
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-10 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Development of an educational intervention for patients with Irritable Bowel
Syndrome (IBS) - a pilot study.
Version: 1Date:30 October 2008
Reviewer: Anne Kennedy
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
1. More details are needed about how the information needs of patients were
used to develop the content of the IBS school (and what their direct input was ie
were patients consulted on the content?). Who developed the written information
that was given to patients? Was this evidence-based or related to the knowledge
of the professionals who delivered it?
2. Specifics are needed about how the self-efficacy theory and General Theory of
Nursing were used to design both the content of the education and the evaluation
methods used. It is not clear how the outcome measures selected actually relate
to these theories.
3. How were the pre-IBS school interviews analysed? Did the findings from these
interviews influence the content of the education? It would be helpful to have a
section in the results describing any analysis done on these interviews. It is a
shame that no face to face interviews were done with the participants after the
IBS school.
4. Need to justify why a generic HRQoL was used rather than an IBS-specific
measure.
5. At this pilot stage, it is important to know what aspects of the education did not
work well – e.g. the attendance was not that good given that this was a tightly
selected small group – do the authors have any information on why people did
not attend sessions? More details on why goals weren’t met or only partially met
would be helpful.
6. A more critical appraisal of the IBS school is needed in the discussion. This is
a high intensity intervention requiring the involvement of five health professionals
– do the authors think that such an education intervention for this group of
patients is something that health service organizations would be willing to pay
for?
Minor essential revisions
1. The whole paper would be improved by someone editing it to improve the
translation from Swedish to English – the grammar and terminology is clumsy
and awkward in places and there are a few spelling mistakes.
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'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-10 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Development of an educational intervention for patients with Irritable Bowel
Syndrome (IBS) - a pilot study.
Version: 2Date:15 December 2008
Reviewer: Anne Kennedy
Reviewer's report:
I consider that the authors have adequately addressed the revisions I suggested
although there are still grammatical and spelling errors which should be dealt
with.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-9 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Fatty acid composition of subcutaneous adipose tissue and gastric
mucosa: is there a relation with gastric ulceration?
Version: 1Date:8 July 2008
Reviewer: Stachowska Ewa
Reviewer's report:
Article : Fatty acid composition of subcutaneous adipose tissue and gastric
mucosa : is there an relation with gastric ucleration?
VA Packgalos et al.
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? – Yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described? – No
3. Are the data sound? -Yes
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? - No
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?- Yes
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?- Yes
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? - Yes
9. Is the writing acceptable? -Yes
Please make your review as constructive and detailed as possible in your
comments so that
- Discretionary Revisions (which are recommendations for improvement but
which the author can choose to ignore)
- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use
of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
- Major Compulsory Revisions (which the author must respond to before a
decision on publication can be reached)Background
Sugestion:
1. Page 3 .
It is not true that PUFA cannot be endogenously syntesized from carbohydrates-
see charter „Biosynthesis of Fatty acids” from Harper’s Biochemistry (RK Murray
et al.). In this way oleic acid - precursor of n-9 family should belong to an
essential fatty acids (EFA) – as we know, it isn’t true. Only two EFA: linoleic and
alpha linolenic can be use as biomarkers of dietary intake.
2. Page 4 – from linoleic acid - two different of eikosconids precursor (20 carbon
fatty acids) are synthesized:
a)dihommogamma linoleic – that are of precursor of prostanoids (prostaglandins
and tromboxanes) from series 1 and leukotriens and lipoxins from series 3
b) arachidonic amid tahat are precursor of prostaglandins and TX from 2 series
and LT from 4 series.
PGs (eg PGE2) that are synthesized from arachidonic acid, have both - anti
inflammatory and proinflammatory function. It is a possible to all this PG, always
are able to protect against noxius agents?
3. Page 5 and 6
What was a reason of application of two columns and conditions of fatty acids
separation from different tissues?
4. Page 8 and 9 - That are incomprehensible recordings.- Is C 14:19 cis - mean
C14 : 1cis-9? Or what is mean- C14:19,12c? or C 20 :01?
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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-9 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Fatty acid composition of subcutaneous adipose tissue and gastric
mucosa: is there a relation with gastric ulceration?
Version: 2Date:15 September 2008
Reviewer: Caroline M Pond
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
The paper is much improved. However, the text including the abstract and
conclusions is turgidly written and in places repetitive. It would be greatly
improved for abbreviation. The two figures are not necessary as they add nothing
to the description in the text. Much of the material at the beginning of the
Discussion should be greatly abbreviated and moved to the Introduction. The
Discussion should concentrate on the interpretation of the data being presented
and should not duplicate serial in the introduction.
There are still a number of editorial and typographical errors including:
H. Pylori the species name should not have a capital letter. Trans and cis should
be in italics. 10 ml, 0.5 ml, 30 mg, 80 oC, 0.2 µl, vacutainer tube. There are still
several inappropriate use of ‘will’.
The references are excessively numerous and not up-to-date. Of the 66
references, only 4 are 2004 or later. Many of the older ones could be deleted or
replaced by citing reviews.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare I have no competing interest