JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-11 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effects of Pectin Liquid on Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in Children
With Cerebral Palsy
Version: 3Date:19 February 2008
Reviewer: Tobias G Wenzl
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has improved. Most of the proposed changes were implemented.
There are still some minor amendments to consider:
Methods / Subjects / Second paragraph:
- I do not understand "(% time pH<4, <4%)". Please correct.
Discussion / Last paragraph:
- reword: ".. and may be considered as an alternative therapy .."
On balance, one must recommend "Minor Essential Revisions", i.e. "Accept
after minor essential revisions".
The category remains "An article of limited interest".
The English language is now "Acceptable".
No further statistical advice must be seeked.
I declare I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-10 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Inverse association between gastroesophageal reflux and blood pressure:
results of a large community based study.
Version: 1Date:10 August 2007
Reviewer: Eamonn M M Quigley
Reviewer's report:
General Straightforward study whose limitations (small numbers, symptom-based
definitions) are readily acknowledged and the conclusions are not over-stated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
None
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
None
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
None
What next?: Accept without revision
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-8-10 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Inverse association between gastroesophageal reflux and blood pressure:
results of a large community based study.
Version: 1Date:1 November 2007
Reviewer: Michael Mendall
Reviewer's report:
The study is interesting but I have a number of concerns:
The biological plausibility for the hypothesis is relatively weak.
Of most concern is the fact that in the whole population including subjects with
hypertension there are no relationships or if anything relationships in the other
direction. The most honest analysis is to include all the subjects adjusting for
treatment with anti-hypertensive medication.
Only one of the four possible analyses(systolic BP v regurg and heartburn,
diastolic BP v regurgitation and heartburn) is statistically significant.
There is no evidence of any dose response ie increasing severity of reflux and
heart burn being associated with a graded response of BP.
Why were not all of the subjects available from the community study included?
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-10 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Inverse association between gastroesophageal reflux and blood pressure:
results of a large community based study.
Version: 3Date:16 January 2008
Reviewer: Michael Mendall
Reviewer's report:
The first sentence of the discussion conludes that there was a similar yet weaker
association between BP and heartburn. This is claerly not the case. There is
either no relation whic is the most honest thing to say or anything a relationship
the other way.
Could the authors suggest why there was no association wit diastolic blood
pressure?
These concerns aside, I think that the paper is a fair presentation of the data
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, 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-8-9 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Transcription factors GATA-4 and GATA-6 in normal and neoplastic human
gastrointestinal mucosa
Version: 1Date:27 July 2007
Reviewer: Rebecca C Fitzgerald
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed the comments made. My only outstanding comment
is that figure 5b would be improved by using blocks of colour rather than
gradations of shading as this makes it difficult to appreciate the difference
between the categories.
What next?: Accept after discretionary revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-9 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Transcription factors GATA-4 and GATA-6 in normal and neoplastic human
gastrointestinal mucosa
Version: 2Date:17 December 2007
Reviewer: Kentaro Sugano
Reviewer's report:
The most of the points raised by this reviewer were answered by authors.
However, the reason why they chose to use anti-Na+-K+-ATPase (alfa subunit)to
identify parietal cells is not well understood, because the antibody to either alfa or
beta subunit to H+-K-ATPase is commercally availble.
As authors commented that the localization of Na+-K+-ATPase (alfa subunit)was
in the basolateral membrane, it is obvious that the antibody did not recognize
H+-K-ATPase which is located in the cytoplasm (microvesicles) or luminal
membrane.
Thus, the identity of parietal cells should be re-confirmed with the specific
antibody to H+, K+-ATPase.
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
No conflicts of interests exist.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-9 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Transcription factors GATA-4 and GATA-6 in normal and neoplastic human
gastrointestinal mucosa
Version: 3Date:15 February 2008
Reviewer: Kentaro Sugano
Reviewer's report:
Authors have re-examined the cellular identification by using the antibodies
against two subunits of H+, K+-ATPase, thereby clarifying the cells that
co-express GATA factors.
Only a minor problems as indicated below should be corrected before printing.
1.p.5, line 5 from the bottom. Please clarify the meaning of "intestinal and
Barrett's esophagus".
2.p.6 Please correct the unitÃ¯Â¼Â# "10 mg/mol of citric acid, pH 6"
3.p.7 Lower case letter should be used for "Chromogranin".
4.p.8, line 3. "identificate" should be "identify".
There may be some other grammatical problems or simple errors, which can be
corrected by the publishers before printing.
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: 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-8-7 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Gastrointestinal symptoms and motility disorders in patients with systemic
scleroderma
Version: 1Date:24 July 2007
Reviewer: Eldon Shaffer
Reviewer's report:
General
This is an important addition to our understanding of gut function associated with
scleroderma.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
1. Syntax The abstract has syntax errors: "Despite gallbladder...were....";
"associated to..."; "independently".
2. Small bowel transit was impaired yet there was no bacterial overgrowth. How
was the latter validated?
3. Esophageal symptoms and motility abnromalities, the most common GI
association, should be briefly included in these scleroderma patients.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Table 4 is negative and could be very briefly included in the text.
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: 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-8-7 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Gastrointestinal symptoms and motility disorders in patients with systemic
scleroderma
Version: 2Date:11 December 2007
Reviewer: Petros Sfikakis
Reviewer's report:
No comments
What next?: Accept without revision
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-8-7 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Gastrointestinal symptoms and motility disorders in patients with systemic
scleroderma
Version: 2Date:6 January 2008
Reviewer: Virginia Steen
Reviewer's report:
I want to congratulate the authors on their excellent revision of the paper. It is
vastly improved and I think most readers will find it very interesting and helpful. I
have no changes to suggest at this point.
What next?: Accept without revision
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-8-8 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:A self administered reliable questionnaire to assess lower bowel symptoms
Version: 1Date:20 November 2007
Reviewer: Ioannis Mouzas
Reviewer's report:
General
There are several studies on differentiating between functional and
non-functional bowel disease on the grounds of the symptoms. Already since the
70’s the so-called Manning criteria approach was one of the first efforts to utilize
patients’ symptom clusters in order to differentiate between disease groups.
This manuscript deals with the development and first validation of a self
administered questionnaire on lower bowel symptoms. It was validated in
patients attending gastroenterologists or surgeons, before most probably being
submitted to a colonoscopy.
The methods used for the creation of the questionnaire and for its validation are
the standard ones. An advanced statistic evaluation was performed in order to
assess test-retest reliability, content validity, and criterion validity. Besides
test-retest within patients, agreement was also assessed between patients and
their doctors. This last comparison is a very original one that should be listed in
the strengths of this study.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached: No
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct): No
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore): The possible
use of this or any other questionnaire as an instrument to elicit symptoms that
may be used to predict colorectal cancer (as suggested by Selvachandran et al
Lancet 2002) is not supported by the evidence. In any case, the data are
inconsistent. Much more, there is an important implementation of this simple and
valid questionnaire: its use by physicians as a guide of the clinical history (filled
out as interviewer-administered questionnaire or by the patient, as in the present
study) so as no symptoms are left non-assessed during the clinical consultation. I
think that this point should be dealt more in depth in the discussion section.
What next?: Accept after discretionary revisions
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-8 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:A self administered reliable questionnaire to assess lower bowel symptoms
Version: 2Date:23 January 2008
Reviewer: Ioannis Mouzas
Reviewer's report:
The discetionary revisions that I recommended have been addressed satisfactory
by the authors.
What next?: Accept without revision
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-8-8 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:A self administered reliable questionnaire to assess lower bowel symptoms
Version: 2Date:27 January 2008
Reviewer: David Cade
Reviewer's report:
Nil
What next?: Accept without revision
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:
Review of the revised article. I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-6 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Meta-analysis of prophylactic corticosteroid use in post-ERCP pancreatitis
Version: 3Date:15 November 2007
Reviewer: Takeshi Tsujino
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors have responded adequately to my questions and suggestions in my
prior review. I think that the 3rd paragraph in Discussion of the revised
manuscript is legible divison into two, but I recommend publication.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Accept after discretionary revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-6 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Meta-analysis of prophylactic corticosteroid use in post-ERCP pancreatitis
Version: 3Date:26 November 2007
Reviewer: Alberto Mariani
Reviewer's report:
Only minor language corrections:
To do the following corrections
a) in the conclusion of the abstract: Corticosteroids cannot prevent pancreatic
injury after ERCP. Therefore, their use in the prophylaxis of PEP is not
recommended.
b) in the last three lines of the discussion: Therefore, further studies with the
standard administration of cortecosteroids in ERCP are needed to provide solid
evidence regarding its effectiveness in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.
c) in the conclusion (corrections in the last two lines): Therefore, the use of
corticosteroids in the prophylaxis of PEP is not routinely recommended.
What next?: Accept without revision
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-5 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Epidemiology of constipation in Europe and Oceania
Version: 1Date:22 September 2007
Reviewer: Vera Loening-Baucke
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
In the introduction and discussion:
Rome II should be changed to Rome III and the following references should be
added into the manuscript.
1. Rasquin A, Di Lorenzo C, Forbes D, et al. Childhood functional gastrointestinal
disorders: child/adolescent. Gastroenterology 2006;130:1527-37.
2. Hyman PE, Milla PJ, Benninga MA, et al. Childhood gastrointestinal disorders:
neonate/toddler. Gastroenterology 2006;130:1519-26.
Page 4, second paragraph: change “putting” to “making”
Page 5, 3rd paragraph, line 2-5: the sentence is incomplete.
Page 7, last sentence: constipation related to diabetes mellitus and Parkinson’s
disease is not a functional gastrointestinal disorder.
Page 8, 2nd paragraph: delete or otherwise show a reference to proof this
statement.
Page 9; What is currently known: give results from the recent systemic review
from America
What next?: Accept after discretionary revisions
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-8-5 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Epidemiology of constipation in Europe and Oceania
Version: 1Date:28 September 2007
Reviewer: Wieger P Voskuijl
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
When reviewing the manuscript it did not appear clear to me what the exact aim
of this study and why it was undertaken.
For example why did you choose the combination of Europe and Oceania to
assess prevalence. You do not make clear in your introduction whether you
chose only reports on functional constipation. (i.e. no organic causes van be
found). Could it not be concluded on before hand thatthe prevalence rates would
vary according to the definition used? And that prevalence rates would vary
according to the population researched?
The introduction should focus on your aim; to investigate the prevalence in these
continents. When you explain the concept functional GI disease you should be
more specific and clear. Functional disorders can not be called fucntional in a
group with a known organic disorder like Parkinson or diabetes (discussion
paragraph 5). What is the meaning of the information provided bythe second and
third paragraph of the introduction?
Is the am to compare the prevalence of Europe and Oceania to the United
States?
Why did you include french articles? Is it not true that articles not published in
English are of lower scientific quality?
The first line of the second paragraph of the methods section is actually
introdcution.
DPW is an abreviation and should be explained first. It is generally known that by
using different definitions the range of prevalence rates will be very wide. Either
state this or restrict to articles using one definition.
Then you state in your result (2nd paragraph). "Thus it is useful ...of constipation
used." Maybe you should do so then right away.
Your discussion is too long and should focus on what your results add and
compare them to other authers on this subject.
Finally, since functional constipation is functional and its etiology is unknown, you
cannot call it a disease (final line of the discussion). It is a symptom complex.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Reject because too small an advance to publish
Level of interest: An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a
scientific/medical journal
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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-8-5 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Epidemiology of constipation in Europe and Oceania: a systematic review
Version: 2Date:18 November 2007
Reviewer: Wieger P Voskuijl
Reviewer's report:
General
The revised manuscript has improved a lot and is better to read and is more
'accessible'.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
I still miss an explanation as to why the authors chose the combination of Europe
and Oceania to assess the prevalence. You already state that the prevalence of
defecation disorders depends on cultural differences in your revised manusdcript.
Please explain what the rationale is behind combining Europe and Oceania.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
In the revised manuscript constipation is named several times a disease. It is not.
It is a symptom (-complex).
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-5 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Epidemiology of constipation in Europe and Oceania: a systematic review
Version: 2Date:21 November 2007
Reviewer: Vicente Garrigues
Reviewer's report:
General
The manuscript has improved significantly following the authors' revision
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
1. The reference 37 in the new manuscript (Galvez C, et al) refers to a
manuscript from our group. Population evaluated in this study is the same as in
the reference 26 (Garrigues V, et al). So, it should not be included in table 1.
2. Please, indicate if the mean values for prevalence of constipation were
calculated by averaging the prevalence obtained in each study or if it had into
consideration the size of the sample in each study
3. It should be quite interesting for the reader to describe in the manuscript the 8
questions included in the scoring system
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
1. Please, correct the number of tables and references in the front page of the
new manuscript
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
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-8-5 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Epidemiology of constipation in Europe and Oceania: a systematic review
Version: 3Date:21 December 2007
Reviewer: Vicente Garrigues
Reviewer's report:
No more comments
What next?: Accept without revision
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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-8-5 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Epidemiology of constipation in Europe and Oceania: a systematic review
Version: 3Date:3 January 2008
Reviewer: Vera Loening-Baucke
Reviewer's report:
I have reviewed the manuscript MS: 1128988045154252 for the third time and it
is now okay. The only suggestion I have is to replace the word 'interrogated" with
"interviewed' in Table 2, Texerau.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-5 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Epidemiology of constipation in Europe and Oceania: a systematic review
Version: 3Date:10 January 2008
Reviewer: Wieger P Voskuijl
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I am satisfied by the changes you have made in this third version. I do not need
another version of the manuscript.
Sincerely,
Wieger Voskuijl, MD, PhD
What next?: Accept without revision
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-4 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Bile Reflux Index After Theurapeutic Biliary Procedures
Version: 1Date:26 November 2007
Reviewer: Attila Csendes
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Introduction
1.- The bile reflux index is a very indirect way to measure or determine
duodeno-gastric reflux. The proper way is to measure this reflux directly by
different techniques.
Methods
1.- What do you mean by “other issues”?
2.- IM must be intestinal metaplasia. Describe it.
3.- How are you sure that this index truly represents duodeno-gastric reflux? This
point is crucial.
Results
1.- Table 1 can be eliminated and incorporated in the text.
2.- It is absolutely strange that no patients with Billroth II had HP(+). This
reviewer has studied this point in over 60 patients and 1/3 have HP (+). Your
group is too small for any conclusion.
3.- Table 1 and 2 can be grouped together: Eliminate gender, and leave only age
and HP.
4.- Your study is very strange. Billroth II gastrectomy is the maximal representant
of duodeno-gastric reflux and none has HP (+).
5.- Table 5 can be eliminated and incorporated in the text. Table 6 similar.
Discussion
Complete
References
13,14,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,28,31,32 = numbers in parenthesis should be
eliminated.
Figure 1 can be eliminated, because it adds nothing relevant.
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
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-8-4 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Bile Reflux Index After Theurapeutic Biliary Procedures
Version: 1Date:11 December 2007
Reviewer: Tomita Ryouichi
Reviewer's report:
I think that this manuscript is interesting. However, there are some problems.
1) It is better for you to describe patient`s background factor in detail (for
example, functional gastrointestinal disorders, peptic ulcer, and so on).
2)What time did you carry out these examinations?
3)What kind of methods should you perform to clarify the etiologies of DGR in
future?
4) Remove M/F% in Tables 1 and 2.
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
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-8-4 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Bile Reflux Index After Theurapeutic Biliary Procedures
Version: 2Date:8 January 2008
Reviewer: Attila Csendes
Reviewer's report:
I have reviewed carefully the corrected manuscript. I am satisfied with
their answers. The only point in discussion for me is the true value of the
"Bile reflux index", as a valid manifestation of duodeno-gastric reflux. The
paper can be accepted for publication.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-4 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Bile Reflux Index After Theurapeutic Biliary Procedures
Version: 2Date:15 January 2008
Reviewer: Tomita Ryouichi
Reviewer's report:
I recommend this revised manuscript as an acceptance for this Journal.
What next?: Accept without revision
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-8-3 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Alcoholic cirrhosis in Denmark - population-based incidence, prevalence,
and hospitalization rates between 1988 and 2005: a descriptive cohort study
Version: 1Date:18 October 2007
Reviewer: Mats Ramstedt
Reviewer's report:
General remarks and suggested major revisions
This study address an important issue namely how cirrhosis morbidity (incidence,
prevalence, and hospitalisation rates) have developed in Denmark during the
past 15-20 years. It shows that the development is different across age groups
with increasing rates among those above 65 years, declining rates in the younger
population and stable rates in the age group 50-64 years.
My main concern with the paper is the lack of putting the results in a broader
context and that there is too little attempt to explain the revealed age-specific
patterns:
• Do these age-specific trends mean that alcohol-harm in general has developed
differently across age groups, do other harm indicators confirm the pattern or are
they only relevent to alcoholic cirrhosis?
• What are the possible explanations for these age-specific differences, for
instance the decline in younger age groups? A higher ambition with respect to
explaining the results are needed in terms of possible cohort effects (is it really a
cohort study as the title suggests?), consequences of policy changes etc..
• I also miss a more comprenesive and detailed description of the survey findings
the authors refer to that show a similar age-specific pattern with respect to
self-reported alcohol consumption. When were they conducted and in what way
too the results match (or not match) the cirrhosis results?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions
• The difference between incidence, prevalence and hospitalisation rates needs
to be more clearly explained.
• The information presented in the graphs are very difficult to follow and I suggest
that they must be revised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: 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-8-3 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Alcoholic cirrhosis in Denmark - population-based incidence, prevalence,
and hospitalization rates between 1988 and 2005: a descriptive cohort study
Version: 2Date:17 January 2008
Reviewer: Mats Ramstedt
Reviewer's report:
I think that the authors have responded accurately to my remarks.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-3 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Alcoholic cirrhosis in Denmark - population-based incidence, prevalence,
and hospitalization rates between 1988 and 2005: a descriptive cohort study
Version: 2Date:18 January 2008
Reviewer: Geoffrey Nguyen
Reviewer's report:
The authors have made revisions that have adequately addressed my concerns.
I have no further suggestions for revision.
What next?: Accept without revision
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-2 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Neoplastic transformation of rat liver epithelial cells is enhanced by
non-transferrin-bound iron.
Version: 1Date:17 September 2007
Reviewer: Kyle E Brown
Reviewer's report:
General
This is a well-done study which establishes an in vitro model of tumor promotion
by iron in a rat liver epithelial cell line.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
1. Figure 1A suggests that T51B cells contain essentially no iron under control
conditions. However, this may be a limitation of the sensitivity of the method, thus
the limits of detection of this method should be indicated. Given that the
increases in ferritin expression could represent cellular stress (i.e., an acute
phase response) in addition to increased iron stores, it would be helpful to
assess expression of transferrin receptor under the experimental conditions
(including those in which DFO was used)to further confirm the alterations in iron
status.
2. In the Discussion, the authors consider the mechanisms by which FAC might
act as a tumor promoter. They favor the possibility that iron exerts a tumor
promoting effect through its toxicity. As this is an important point, the manuscript
would be strengthened by direct assessment of the toxicity of FAC in T51B cells.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
1. Figure 1A lacks units on the y axis.
2. Variances (+/-) should be given for the data in Tables 1 and 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: 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-8-2 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Neoplastic transformation of rat liver epithelial cells is enhanced by
non-transferrin-bound iron.
Version: 2Date:19 November 2007
Reviewer: Debbie Trinder
Reviewer's report:
General
All concerns were adequately addressed in the revision of the manuscript
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Accept without revision
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-2 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Neoplastic transformation of rat liver epithelial cells is enhanced by
non-transferrin-bound iron.
Version: 2Date:27 November 2007
Reviewer: Kyle E Brown
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors have provided a reasonable response to the critiques, although the
use of the MTT assay to address the issue of cytotoxicity is not wholly
satisfactory. The MTT assay measures a metabolic activity (reduction of a
tetrazolium compound) that is assumed to be proportional to the number of cells
present. In the current work, the MTT assay confirms the the overall result of the
cell counts but does not provide additional information regarding the mechanism
by which iron acts as a tumor promoter. This issue would be more appropriately
addressed by measurements of cell membrane integrity (e.g., Trypan Blue
exclusion, LDH release, etc.) or, better yet, reproductive integrity (clonogenic
survival). Since the effects of high-dose FAC on cell number were apparent as
early as 3 days, these parameters might be informative after a single exposure to
FAC.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
On the top of page 16, the authors make reference to "local NTBI concentrations
that exist in necrotic regions of an iron loaded cirrhotic liver." While I accept the
point regarding potential differences in iron citrate levels between the liver and
the periphery, the implication that there is widespread necrosis in iron-loaded
liver (whether human disease or animal models) in incorrect and may be
misleading to readers who are not expert in this area. This should be changed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-1 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Multilayered epithelium in a rat model and human Barrett's esophagus:
Expression patterns of transcription factors and differentiation markers
Version: 1Date:21 September 2007
Reviewer: Paula Chaves
Reviewer's report:
GeneralIn this interesting study the authors compare the rat MLE with the MLE
observed in patients with Barrett’s esophagus (BE) by using the expression of
transcription factors and differentiation markers. The material and methods are
well defined and clearly described and the markers used for the phenotypic
assessment of MLE are appropriate for the purpose of the study and correctly
detailed in Table 1. The results are clearly described and illustrated by pictures of
good quality and well summarized in Table 2. In the discussion the authors
analyze the phenotypic similarities of rat and human MLE and discuss the data
considering the biological events that may underlying the control and
development of this type of epithelium. The discussion is well organized and the
conclusions are well supported by the results. Nevertheless, some Minor
Essential and some Discretionary Revisions must be done.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
Nothing to state
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
a. On page 9, line 2, CLE must be replaced by BE. The presence of IM in the
esophagus is, like the authors define on page 6, the morphologic criteria for the
definition of Barrett’s esophagus.
b. On page 10, line13, Fig 2G is cited as the expression of Muc2, but Villin is the
legend on Fig2G.
c. The imunoexpression is well documented by pictures of good quality but Fig 2
is not friendly. In the same line there are images from HNF1# in rat and from
Muc2 in human. In the Fig 2 legend the imunoexpression of intestinal markers is
cited but, according to the authors the pictures of these markers in rat or human
squamous epithelium are not shown (page 10 line 10).
d. On page 14, line 12; metplasia must be replaced by metaplasia.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
a. The title could be improved by suggesting the similarities between the two
epithelia (rat and human MLE).
b. On page 4 line 15, the idea is more correctly expressed by replacing “the
mechanism of IM” by “the mechanism underling the development of IM”.
c. On page 9, line 9, it is not necessary to say that “human samples all contained
MLE”. This is on the methods as inclusion criteria.
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
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 below.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-1 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Multilayered epithelium in a rat model and human Barrett's esophagus:
Expression patterns of transcription factors and differentiation markers
Version: 1Date:25 September 2007
Reviewer: Takanori Hattori
Reviewer's report:
General
The present paper deals with development of Barrett's esophagus, and the
authors interested in multilayered epithelium (MLE) seen in the process of
metaplastic conversion. They paid attentions to expression patterns of
transcription factors and differentiation markers, and some results are interesting.
However, there are several problemsÅ@and an extensive revision is needed.
I wonder if the MLE is undefined entity. And a differentiation between the MLE
and intestinal metaplasia is also unclear in the present study. The authors
observed the MLE in human and rat esophagus, and they described that the
MLE consists of 4 to 8 layers of cells that show squamous differentiation in the
basal portion and columnar differentiation in the superficial layer. But, this
structure may be temporary even if this really exists, and how does the MLE
arise from the esophageal mucosa and how does the MLE develop to specialized
columnar epithelium of Barrett remain unanswered, although these two are an
important, crucial question. The columnar cells basically need to face the
basement membrane at the basal side, and in this sense, they must be in a same
position as the squamous cells.
Although the present authors examined expression patterns of transcription
factors and differentiation markers, they failed to show how these factors/markers
are related to a metaplastic change in Barrett's esophagus.
There are already detailed studies on the development of Barrett's esophagus.
Kumagai et al. and Tatsuta et al. proposed a GRCL theory. They observed a
metaplastic conversion of squamous cell to columnar cell through GRCL. The
first change is shown to be pyloric-foveolar metaplasia of squamous epithelium
followed by an appearance of intestinal-type goblet cells. The present authors
must explain how the MLE arise and develop.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-1 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Multilayered epithelium in a rat model and human Barrett's esophagus:
Expression patterns of transcription factors and differentiation markers
Version: 2Date:21 November 2007
Reviewer: Takanori Hattori
Reviewer's report:
General
The text is rewritten, and the paper can be accepted for publication
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Accept without revision
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare my competing interests in relation to the paper.