JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0323-1 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Comparison of clinical course and outcome of acute pancreatitis according
to the two main etiologies: alcohol and gallstone
Version:2Date:14 March 2015
Reviewer: Tsukasa Ikeura
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
To compare the clinical course, outcomes, and mortality between alcoholic and
gallstone AP, it is important to determine the differences in the severity of AP on
admission between these two conditions. The authors reported that, there were
no significant differences in Ranson, BISAP, and APACHE-II scores within 48
hours after admission, whereas the prevalence of severe AP and the mortality
were significantly higher in the alcohol group than in the biliary group. I am sure
that these results indicated that there was no difference in the severity of AP on
admission between alcoholic and gallstone AP, but the patients with alcoholic AP
were more likely to become severe during the clinical course compared with
gallstone AP. Authors should discuss more about this point.
Minor Essential Revisions
None.
Discretionary Revisions
In patients with gallstone pancreatitis, the severity, clinical course and prognosis
could be associated with acute cholangitis and cholestasis. Recommend authors
discuss this issue.
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/s12876-015-0323-1 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Comparison of clinical course and outcome of acute pancreatitis according
to the two main etiologies: alcohol and gallstone
Version:2Date:16 March 2015
Reviewer: Raffaele Pezzilli
Reviewer's report:
The authors aimed to investigate the difference between the clinical course of
alcoholic and gallstone acute pancreatitis in 126 patients of the originally 153
retrospectively selected. The between the two groups were the incidence of
pseudocysts that was higher in alcohol group that in the biliary group, CTSI
higher in the alcohol group tan in the biliary group, the organ failure persisting
beyond 48 hours higher in the alcohol group than in the biliary group and
mortality also higher in the alcohol the in the biliary group.
Major comments
1. My main concern is the retrospective nature of the study that suffers of a bias
of selection.
2. The authors used the modified Atlanta criteria; however, in their series there
are no walled-off necrosis and this should be explained.
3. In addition, according to the modified Atlanta criteria, the incidence of
pseudocyst is lower than that of walled-off necrosis and the definition of
pseudocyst is stricter than that of original Atlanta classification system. Please
comment.
4. The high number of pseudocysts in alcoholic pancreatitis may be related to a
chronic pancreatitis: how many attack of pancreatitis there were in the alcoholic
group; in other words, there was a difference in recurrence of pancreatitis in the
two groups of patients studied. In the follow-up how of alcoholic patients
developed chronic pancreatitis.
5. Pseudocyst is a late complication of acute pancreatitis: the authors should
report the time between the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis and the diagnosis of
pseudocyst.
6. The authors stated "We analyzed amylase, lipase, and lipase/amylase ratio
when two patients with renal failure in the biliary group were excluded." the
sentence has no sense and should be reworded.
7. Why the authors evaluate the lipase/amylase ratio? There is evidence that this
parameter is not useful to distinguish between alcoholic and non-alcoholic
pancreatitis.
8. References should be updated and more paper should be cited according to
accuracy of lipase/amylase ratio.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:
None to declare
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0323-1 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Comparison of clinical course and outcome of acute pancreatitis according
to the two main etiologies: alcohol and gallstone
Version:3Date:7 May 2015
Reviewer: Tsukasa Ikeura
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has been well revised.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest 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/s12876-015-0323-1 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Comparison of clinical course and outcome of acute pancreatitis according
to the two main etiologies: alcohol and gallstone
Version:3Date:24 April 2015
Reviewer: Raffaele Pezzilli
Reviewer's report:
No further comments
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:
None
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0317-z (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Early stage signet ring cell carcinoma of the colon examined by magnifying
endoscopy with narrow-band imaging: a case report
Version:2Date:6 May 2015
Reviewer: Ying Yuan
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Signet ring cell carcinoma of colon is rare, and early stage is even more
unusual. This case presented an early stage primary signet ring cell carcinoma of
cecum, which is really rare. Additionally, this case had a history of early gastric
cancer six years ago. This double primary cancer patient may have some kind of
gene defect or heredity disease. If possible, the family history should provide,
may it be a case of HNPCC?
2. You can also take some relative gene test, such as STK11, P53, CHEK2,
APC, BRCA1, CDH1(or E-cadherin) et al, to find out whether this patient have
gene defect or not, or other syndrome?
3. The technology of magnifying endoscopy with NBI and crystal violet staining
has been commonly used in clinical practice for several years. Though this case
provided the features under NBI magnifying endoscopy, the findings of signet
ring cell carcinoma of colon are similar to those of gastric signet ring cell
carcinoma. So the describe of technological finding should not be so important,
you could cut down some.
4. The diagnostic and treatment process of this case did not conformed to the
guidelines. Once a lesion was seen under the endoscopy, the biopsy was the
first step and pathologic diagnosis should be confirmed firstly. No matter the
carcinoma was confined in the mucosal layer or not, ESD was not recommended
for colon cancer in NCCN guidelines. A radical resection should be suggested.
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/s12876-015-0317-z (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Early stage signet ring cell carcinoma of the colon examined by magnifying
endoscopy with narrow-band imaging: a case report
Version:2Date:15 May 2015
Reviewer: Kenshi Yao
Reviewer's report:
Major comments:
1. English used in the manuscript is not well written. The authors should revise
English asking a native speaker who is specialized in editing the scientific article.
2. Histopathological investigation need more information. The author investigate
the mucin phenotype using immunostaining in oder to demonstrate the
signet-ring cell carcinoma's phenotype.
3. At the last part of discussion, they mentioned that when the signet-ring cell
carcinoma could be diagnosed the patient would undergo laparoscopic resection
from the beginning. This discussion is somewhat problem from the ethical point.
If they take a biopsy and if they confirmed the presence of signet-ring cell
carcinoma, they patient should have been subjected to surgery.
Minor comments:
1. Please clarify if the sentence "The tumor cells infiltrated 250 micrometers into
the submucosal layer of the lymphatic vessels" in the abstract is correct. English
itself is difficult to understand.
2. The authors need to show whether they took a biopsy prior to endoscopic
resection. If not, why they did not take it.
3. With regard to magnifying NBI findings in the center of the lesion, they only
described microvascular pattern. Microsurface pattern should be shown there.
4. Histological findings of the resected specimens are poorly described. Vascular
invasion and lymphatic invasion should be described separately.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0317-z (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Early stage signet ring cell carcinoma of the colon examined by magnifying
endoscopy with narrow-band imaging: a case report
Version:3Date:8 July 2015
Reviewer: Ying Yuan
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
No major compulsory revisions is needed with regard to the current revised
article.
Minor Essential Revisions
I have no minor essential revisions.
Discretionary Revisions
It is better to state whether the additional laparoscopic ileocecal resection the
patient underwent is a radical operation or not.
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/s12876-015-0314-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Rectal indomethacin versus placebo to reduce the incidence of pancreatitis
after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Results of a controlled
clinical trial.
Version:2Date:5 February 2015
Reviewer: Alberto Mariani
Reviewer's report:
The issue of the medical prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) has been
recently emphasized thanks to updated European (Dumonceau 2014) and
American (Tenner 2013) guidelines. In this study, authors have confirmed the
efficacy of rectal administration of indomethacin for the prevention of PEP in
high-risk patients.
The topic is of great interest, but some methodological problems put aside the
relevance of the results.
The article is presented as a randomized study, but some criticisms can raise
about its prospective design: both the National Clinical Trials identifier number
and the two references used to define the high risk patients were dated April
2014 and 2015, respectively, while the period of enrollment of the patients
started before (from July 2012 to December 2013).
It is also surprising that the informed consent was given from “patients under the
effect of sedative medication” (from line 183 to 188, page 8): the informed
consent was obtained at the end of ERCP (line 184) and after that the
administration of suppositories, thus, with “patients under the effect of sedative
medication” (line 188).
It is not the case to report in the Methods section (page 8 line 179-180) the
“pancreatic fistulas” as an indication for the placement of pancreatic stent
because of the very low rate of a such disease. It should rather be considered as
an exclusion criteria.
In the Methods section, the references to the consensus definition of PEP
(Cotton 2001) and that for the rate of PEP (25%) reported for high risk patients
are not reported (page 9 line 203 and page 10 line 226, respectively).
In the Discussion section the added value of the results of this study in
comparison with those already published is lacking. Furthermore, the discussion
has to be entirely re-written: it is too long and it seems more a review than a
critical analysis of the results of this and other studies.
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 that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0314-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Rectal indomethacin versus placebo to reduce the incidence of pancreatitis
after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Results of a controlled
clinical trial.
Version:2Date:1 March 2015
Reviewer: Martin Freeman
Reviewer's report:
Well done study with reasonable technique and results (unlike some others) in a
generally LOW to mixed risk group of patients in whom PANCREATIC STENTS
WERE NOT PLACED TO PREVENT PEP.
The authors need to state above in abstract
They need to provide table with background variables of patient and procedure
related risks in treatment and control groups
Otherwise valuable addition to the literature
Minor comments/corrections below
65
Use of 3x amylase 2 hours after the procedure is VERY unusual, as often
markedly elevated but normalizes by next day. Usually use amylase/lipase within
24 hours (next day) plus pain requiring hosptializsation( see Cotton 1991) Why
this criteria for PEP?
200Then definition seems to change
PEP was considered the main outcome variable and was defined as the
development of
201 new or increased abdominal pain consistent with pancreatitis, and elevated
amylase or
202 lipase > 3x the upper limit of normal until 24 hours after the procedure, and
73
3 of them
74 belonged to the control group (p= 0.60). (3 of WHOM?)
124
There is no gold standard to prevent this complication. PERIOD then next
sentence....
figure 2 INdomethacin is misspelled (should be no e at end)
180
In any case was used with the purpose to prevent pancreatitis. ??does this mean
in NO case pancreatic stents were used with the purpose of preventing post ercp
pancreatitis?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
none
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0314-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Rectal indomethacin versus placebo to reduce the incidence of pancreatitis
after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Results of a controlled
clinical trial.
Version:3Date:24 June 2015
Reviewer: Alberto Mariani
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is ok in its revised version.
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' below
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0306-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Desmoid tumors complicating Familial Adenomatous Polyposis: a
meta-analysis of the mutation spectrum of at-risk individuals
Version:2Date:29 January 2015
Reviewer: Heather Hampel
Reviewer's report:
Nice manuscript addressing genotype-phenotype correlations between desmoids
tumors and mutations in the APC gene. First study to normalize the findings by
comparing to the frequency of all mutations in various regions of APC.
Major comment:
Why no mention of codons 1256-1303 throughout the manuscript when the table
appears to show a relative risk of 2.0 for this region that is almost as statistically
significant (if I'm reading the table right) as codons 543-713.
Regarding surveillance for desmoids, at what age would you begin annual
abdominal ultrasound? How would you screen for extra-abdominal desmoids
given the high frequency you found in this meta-analysis?
Minor comment:
I'm not sure if this is just a problem with the upload but there were multiple
instances throughout the manuscript where two words appeared not to have a
space between them (e.g. line 52 "mutationswith" and line 55 "ofAPC" and line
124 "51unique". I stopped keeping track because there were too many. Please
check that this is not occurring in the original.
Tables/Figures are uploaded twice and there are formatting problems (Figure 2, y
axis "Percentage of" is on top of the %es.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0306-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Desmoid tumors complicating Familial Adenomatous Polyposis: a
meta-analysis mutation spectrum of affected individuals
Version:3Date:11 June 2015
Reviewer: Peter P Stanich
Reviewer's report:
No further recommendations. Much improved.
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/s12876-015-0306-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Desmoid tumors complicating Familial Adenomatous Polyposis: a
meta-analysis mutation spectrum of affected individuals
Version:3Date:2 June 2015
Reviewer: Heather Hampel
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revision:
Line 182 clarify in parentheses (e.g. segment based on protein truncation tests
versus codon based on sequencing).
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:
N/A
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0309-z (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Activation of transcription factor AP-1 in response to thermal injury in rat
small intestine and IEC-6 cells
Version:1Date:7 October 2014
Reviewer: Michael Schumann
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
The paper by Zhao et al. suggests a role for AP1 in hyperthermia-altered gene
expression. It includes a number of sophisticated experimental approaches as
EMS and supershift to uncover the role of transcription factor for hyperthermia.
However, differences to previously published work (Cippitelli et al., J Immunol.
2005 Jan 1;174(1):223-32.) on AP1 and NFkappaB should be delineated more
specifically. Otherwise the manuscript is excellent and should be published after
completion of the suggestions below with high priority.
Major points:
1. Figure 4: The reader can appreciate a higher proportion of shedded,
presumably dead cells on a IEC6-layer. The %-survival needs to be clarified. A
staining of the epithelial layer (e.g. IF for cadherin) in combination with an
apoptosis assay would demonstrate the heat stress better. Determining a
transepithelial electrical resistance (TER) for filter grown IEC-6 might be good
global read-out to quantify the epithelial defect induced.
Minor points:
1. Figure 3 should be incorporated in Figure 2
2. Legend figure 4 should include the information, how %-survival was actually
analyzed. Is it the MTT assay mentioned in the methods? In that case it would be
rather proliferation.
3. Figure 6 legend, 2nd sentence needs to be rewritten.
4. Legend Figure 7B: The results text indicates that Fig7B-data are IEC6. Please
add this information also to the legend.
5. Consider to add Fig. S1A to Figure 5.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0309-z (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Activation of transcription factor AP-1 in response to thermal injury in rat
small intestine and IEC-6 cells
Version:1Date:3 March 2015
Reviewer: Joerg Hoffmann
Reviewer's report:
The above mentioned paper is a well performed study on signal transduction in
epithelial cells. Figures are clear. However, the results section in the Abstract is
too short and should be expanded.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0309-z (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Activation of transcription factor AP-1 in response to thermal injury in rat
small intestine and IEC-6 cells
Version:2Date:25 April 2015
Reviewer: Joerg Hoffmann
Reviewer's report:
If changes as followed are implemented:
Results: Heat stress resulted in severe damage to the epithelium of the small
intestine. The cell
morphology and viability were obviously altered when IEC-6 cells were exposed
to hyperthermia.
AP-1 was activated in the small intestine of heat-stressed rats, as was
phosphorylation of the JNK
signaling pathway. In the IEC-6 cell line, AP-1 activation was significantly
increased in groups exposed to 42°C for 1 h, 2 h and 4 h. In contrast, NF-#B was
not activated in both in vivo and in vitro
models.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0294-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Clinical efficacy of B-mode ultrasound-guided percutaneous transhepatic
gallbladder drainage followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute
cholecystitis in high-risk elderly patients
Version:5Date:2 March 2015
Reviewer: Sujoy Pal
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
Please have a look at the uploaded manuscript with highlighted passages which
are required to be addressed by the authors adequately and appropriately
revised. Need to clarify the selection criteria, criteria for labelling a patient elderly
and the process of selection of historical controls. also need to mention how the
skill levels of the operating surgeons were comparable when both the groups
were taken into consideration. a table needs to be deleted. make sure that the
refs are in journal style.
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/s12876-015-0294-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Clinical efficacy of B-mode ultrasound-guided percutaneous transhepatic
gallbladder drainage followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute
cholecystitis in high-risk elderly patients
Version:5Date:27 March 2015
Reviewer: bhushan bhole
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1) Background-45: its a 'disease' and not a disorder
2) Background-49: 'increased' complication rates than elevated complication
rates
3) PTGD treatment-107: need to reformulate entire sentence Anti-infection was
carried out according to routine blood return
4) PTGD treatment-107: please use correct terminology for treatment of
hemorrhagic shock and avoid terms like anti-shock therapy
5) Discussion-220: Fourth not Forth
6) Discussion-228&229: please explain the relevance of statement which holds
true for PTBD and not PTGD-However, this procedure is technical difficult when
applied to patients without bile duct dilation and ..........the dilated bile ducts
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/s12876-015-0311-5 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:IGF-1 attenuates portal hypertension by decreasing portal vein endotoxin
via regulating intestinal tight junctions in cirrhotic rats
Version:4Date:23 March 2015
Reviewer: Jesus S Prieto
Reviewer's report:
The paper addresses an important issue with great clinical relevance, that is the
fact that IGF-I restores the deranged intestinal barrier present in cirrhotic rats and
that this hormone may have a relevant role in the treatment of liver cirrhosis
Major compulsory revisions:
1) Association of two findings do not indicate causal relationship among them.
Thus, although portal hypertension in cirrhotic rats is associated with reduced
occludin and claudin expression and IGF1 restores intestinal barrier function
accompanied by occludin and claudin upregulation, this mere coindence of
effects is no proof of a causal relationship. Therefore the text of the manuscript
should mention that improvement of tight junctions might be one possible
mechamism, together with reduced enterocyte apoptosis, explaining the
restoration of intestinal barrier function mediated by IGF-1.
2) PCR data should be presented by means of real-time quantitative PCR using
the appropriate instruments (and not by densitometry of the PCR bands). If the
authors do not have access to this methodology they should present only WB
data
3) The authors should revise the bibliography. In page 9 (fourth line from the
bottom) they state that IGF-1 displays trophic effects on intestinal endothelium. Is
this correct or do they refer to the intestinal epithelium?
4) page 10 (second paragraph) : IGF-1 instead of HGF-1
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:
None
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0311-5 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:IGF-1 attenuates portal hypertension by decreasing portal vein endotoxin
via regulating intestinal tight junctions in cirrhotic rats
Version:4Date:24 March 2015
Reviewer: Vicente Lorenzo-Zúñiga García
Reviewer's report:
I have the opportunity to review this manuscript focused on beneficial effects of
external administration of IGF-I in cirrhotic rats. The authors have demostrated
that IGF-1 improves intestinal barrier function by increasing intestinal claudin-1
and occludin expressions and attenuatin tight junction dysfunction in intestines of
cirrhotic rats. This is important because till now we only known that IGF-I
enhances intestinal barrier function and reduces endotoxemia, bacterial
traslocation and portal pressure in cirrhotic rats
Major revision: Any
Minor revision: some gramatical mistakes (IFG-I instead of IGF-I)
In my opinion the manuscript is well done and the discusion is concise.
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 competing interests
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0308-0 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:HBV genotypes and response to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in
HIV/HBV-coinfected persons
Version:2Date:26 December 2014
Reviewer: mahmoudreza pourkarim
Reviewer's report:
The authors in manuscript entitled “HBV genotypes and response to tenofovir
disoproxil fumarate in HIV/HBV-coinfected persons” investigated the impact of
different HBV genotypes on the antiviral therapy among HIV/HBV coinfected
patients. This manuscript is well structured, written and presents valuable data
and could be worthy in the field of antiviral therapy. However answer to few
comments are necessary to improve the study for publication.
1- There is no trace of evolutionary model which were used in phylogenetic
analysis.
2- Recombination is a part of HBV evolution, have the authors ever checked the
recombination of the studied strains.
3- It is not well explained that how “phylogenetic analysis can not clearly
determine the genotype of HBV (see line 166). Some examples in the result and
more explanation materials and methods are necessary.
4- I did not understand well how determination of HBV subtype could resolve this
problem (see line 192). Also, there is no follow up in result and discussion about
this type of problem and resolving it.
5- If the collection of another serum/plasma sample was necessary, how long
was the interval between the first and the next sample collection date.
6- It should be statistically analyzed that is there any association between the
history of LAM therapy and late response to the TDF?
7- The result of multiple HBV genotype infections should be compared with other
studies (particularly, the frequency should be compared). At least three recent
references are necessary.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0313-3 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Intraductal papillary mucinous carcinoma of the pancreas associated with
pancreas divisum: a case report and review of the literature
Version:3Date:11 April 2015
Reviewer: Pradeep Rebala
Reviewer's report:
Minor Correction:
CT chest should be read as CT Abdomen in Line No 17 (Highlighted in the
article)
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/s12876-015-0313-3 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Intraductal papillary mucinous carcinoma of the pancreas associated with
pancreas divisum: a case report and review of the literature
Version:3Date:21 April 2015
Reviewer: Puneet Dhar
Reviewer's report:
Interesting case report of a combination of IPMN occurring with pancreas
divisum. Other published cases reporting this combination have also been
reviewed. The difference here is the presentation in the ventral anlage of
pancreas.
Discretionary Revisions:
1. There is a significant overlap of reviewed cases with a previous publication
from Italy (Zippi and Quarto, J Gastroint Dig Syst 2014, 4:171 available online at
http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2161-069X.1000171). The current submission has 12 of
the cases in Table 1 mentioned in a table in the earlier publication (omitting 1). It
may be preferable to allude to this publication and tabulate only the 2 fresh cases
added in this submission.
2. The diagnosis of Pancreas divisum has been established in the reported case
by ERCP . However since there is a coexistent tumour (IPMN here, it is possible
that it is incomplete divisum and the connection with main pancreatic duct has
been obscured by tumour obstruction. It may not be the case - but the possibility
should be alluded to.
3. Color images may be preferable especially in the pathology and endoscopy
images!
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 conflict of interest
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0301-7 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Laparoscopic colonic resection for splenic flexure cancer: our experience.
Version: 3Date:9 October 2013
Reviewer: Christopher M Schalchta
Reviewer's report:
In 2013, this would be considered a fairly low priority publication given the wide
acceptance of laparoscopic colon surgery. Despite the correct assertion that
COST, COLOR, CLASICC and others excluded splenic flexure tumors, most
surgeons have adopted segmental resection of all parts of the colon. This paper
does add some evidence to support this, but probably isn’t that necessary at this
time.
The other issue that weakens this paper is that that there is no control group for
comparison, even a non-randomized control. How do these patients do
compared to open resection of splenic flexure tumors or resection of other parts
of the colon? These types of comparisons, if framed properly, can add insight to
this report.
Minor essential revisions:
There are a few language issues, such as Trendelemburg (Trendelenberg). Most
are minor.
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/s12876-015-0301-7 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Laparoscopic colonic resection for splenic flexure cancer: our experience.
Version:3Date:31 January 2014
Reviewer: Richard Douard
Reviewer's report:
Major revisions
The paper is poorly written. The english has to be extensively corrected by a
native english speaker. Preterit has to be used to present the aims of the studies.
The main difficulties in the treatment of splenic flexure colonic cancer resection
are to obtain (i) a tension-free anastomosis and (ii) adequate margins. For these
reasons, technical standardization is difficult with laparosocpic and open
approach. The anastomosis is usually in contact with the duodenojejunal flexure.
I think that the authors should described all the technical difficulties encountered
with this procedure to explain the scarcity of the literature on the subject
Minor essential revisions
Locally advanced cancer definition has to be given
Typing errors have also to be corrected for example dranaige, length pf skin,
incisions, performe
Colonic mesentery is incorrect and has to be replaced by left mesocolon
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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/s12876-015-0301-7 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Laparoscopic colonic resection for splenic flexure cancer: our experience.
Version:3Date:31 January 2014
Reviewer: Jose Fernandez-Cebrian
Reviewer's report:
The authors show a cohort of patients over 6 years, where they collect their
clinical experience and results obtained oncologicos.
I would ask some questions:
. 1 - Is there a selection criteria based on: BMI, surgeon experience ... or all
patients undergo laparoscopic surgery?
. 2 - In the section on materials and methods discussed 20 operated patients, but
in Table 1 results include only 18. This could alter the results.
3.-It would be desirable to complete the paper with clinical and oncological data
from the open surgery for splenic flexure colon cancer (even if they were
historical data) to reliably evaluate the goodness or otherwise of laparoscopic
surgery.
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.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0301-7 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Laparoscopic colonic resection for splenic flexure cancer: our experience.
Version:9Date:18 February 2015
Reviewer: Christopher M Schalchta
Reviewer's report:
Major comulsory revisions:
The authors have revised their report to address concerns that were expressed
about lack of control group or an approrpiate comparator population. The authors
have addressed this concern by stating as an objective "... to compare our data
to the more recent literature." Yet, this appears not to be done. No summary of
data from the literature is presented for comparison. We are still left with a case
series and comparator. In addition, the authors make reference, in the
discussion, "...there were no significant differences in complication or conversion
rates compared to patients who underwent laparoscopic resection of other colic
segments." What other patients? Were these patients from the authors own
experience? Why make this assertion without presenting any of the data? Not
only is this an obviously unsubstantiated assertion, but an opportunity to address
a major criticism of the first submission has been lost.
The authors have broken down thei data on length of stay as follows:
"Mean length of hospital stay was 8+1 days (range 3-35). For the totally
laparoscopic group the mean length of hospital stay was 4+1 days (range 3-6)
and for the patients undergoing extracorporeal anastomoses was 7+4 days
(range 7-35)."
How is it possible that mean length of stay for the entire series was longer than
the mean length of each of the two subgroups? This undermines my confidence
in all of the data presented in this report.
Minor Essential Revisions:
Table 1 lists sex as "9/14". This is what? Male over female?
Table 1 also lists TNM stage (I.II.III) as 9-9-4. This adds up to 22, not 23.
Table lists 30-day morbidity as 0%. This is not correct. 30-day mortality was 0%,
morbidity was 8.7%. Which were they reporting?
Figure 2 and both Figures 3 add little to this report and could be excluded.
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/s12876-015-0301-7 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Laparoscopic colonic resection for splenic flexure cancer: our experience.
Version:9Date:3 February 2015
Reviewer: Richard Douard
Reviewer's report:
The suggested correction has been made.
The english remains poor and need an extensive revision
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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/s12876-015-0301-7 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Laparoscopic colonic resection for splenic flexure cancer: our experience.
Version:9Date:7 February 2015
Reviewer: Jose Fernandez-Cebrian
Reviewer's report:
.
All of the comments suggested by the reviewer previously have been answered
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/s12876-015-0301-7 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Laparoscopic colonic resection for splenic flexure cancer: our experience.
Version:9Date:11 February 2015
Reviewer: Jan-Sing Hsieh
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. English writing should be improved since some grammar flaws remain in the
text.
(P6L36. P7L4).
2. Data of comparison between intracorporeal and extracorporeal suturing can be
tabularized for more clearly understanding.
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:
no conflict of competing interest
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0305-3 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Lamina propria macrophage phenotypes in relation to Escherichia coli in
Crohn's disease
Version:2Date:18 February 2015
Reviewer: Nobuhiko Kamada
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, Elliott et al investigated the phenotypes of E. coli-laden and E.
coli-unladen macrophages isolated from the intestinal lamina propria of IBD
patients and healthy controls. E. coli-laden macrophages are commonly found in
patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) compared to patients with ulcerative colitis
(UC). No E. coli-laden macrophages were found in healthy controls. Next, the
authors assessed the phenotypes of these macrophages isolated by laser
capture microdissection. Expression levels of cytokines (TNF, IL-23, IL-6, and
IL-8) and inflammatory mediators (iNOS, COX-2) were higher in CD patients than
in control subjects. In CD patients, the E. coli-laden macrophages were found to
express lower levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNF, IL-23, IL-6, IL-8)
compared to the E. coli-unladen macrophages. In contrast, the expression of an
anti-inflammatory cytokine, IL-10, was greater in the E. coli-laden macrophages
than in the E. coli-unladen macrophages. However, in the tissue not affected by
inflammation, the E. coli-laden macrophages express higher levels of
pro-inflammatory cytokines compared to the E. coli-unladen macrophages.
Although the phenotypic characterization of E. coli-laden macrophages in CD
patients is of interest, there are still significant concerns that need to be
addressed to strengthen the main claim of this manuscript. Specific comments
are below:
Major:
1. The authors identified the E. coli-laden macrophages by immunostaining E.
coli. However, the specificity of this method is unclear. To strengthen their claim,
the authors should consider using another method to confirm the presence of E.
coli in the macrophages. For example, the authors could confirm the presence of
E. coli in isolated macrophages by PCR (16S rRNA specific for E. coli).
2. Why Fig. 4B and G did not have a UC patient group?
Discretionary:
1. Similar to comment #1, it would be informative to test whether these
macrophages contain bacteria other than E. coli. Is E. coli the only bacterium
present in the macrophages? Are there any other bacteria present in the E.
coli-unladen macrophage (using universal bacterial 16S rRNA primers)?
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/s12876-015-0307-1 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Plasma Osteopontin is a Biomarker for the Severity of Alcoholic Liver
Cirrhosis, Not for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Screening
Version:3Date:9 April 2015
Reviewer: christian Fingas
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the editor and authors:
Interesting manuscript addressing the timely role of plasma osteopontin (OPN)
as a biomarker for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with alcoholic liver
cirrhosis being the underlying disease. In contrast to several other reports, OPN
in the present study was not found to be a suitable diagnostic biomarker for HCC.
Strengths are the straightforward study design employing a patient cohort with
alcoholic liver cirrhosis for the first time. Minor weaknesses a few; as the authors
mention themselves, accompanying inflammatory processes or other
confounding effects cannot be evaluated due to lacking liver biopsies for each
patient. However, this was beyond the scope of the study.
Overall, this is a straightforward manuscript with no major weaknesses.
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/s12876-015-0307-1 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Plasma Osteopontin is a Biomarker for the Severity of Alcoholic Liver
Cirrhosis, Not for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Screening
Version:3Date:19 April 2015
Reviewer: WING-KIN SYN
Reviewer's report:
Major:
Recruitment of patients: it is unclear if all patients had histologically proven liver
cirrhosis (if not, what proportion had biopsy proven cirrhosis). It is well
recognized that Osteopontin levels are also increased in patients with the
metabolic syndrome (particularly NAFLD / NASH), in the obese, in women, and
in smokers (it would be relevant to cite and discuss the paper by Gual P 2012).
As such, analysis should be corrected for such confounding factors.
It would be important to measure Osteopontin levels from individuals with
non-cirrhotic ALD (i.e. fibrosis) and from healthy blood donors (controls).
Osteopontin levels appear to be upregulated across CP stage (i.e. correlating
with clinical severity) -> please provide relevant statistics in Table 3. Is there any
correlation with MELD?
Like aFP, Osteopontin levels increased with HCC stage - please provide
statistics in Table. Could Osteopontin (with or without aFP) be a useful
non-invasive marker of prognosis? Discuss.
It is unclear how the study was powered - please describe this. The wiide range
of Osteopontin levels detected among HCC (over 2775+ ng/ml) suggest that
investigators should recruit a larger cohort of patients (in this study, there were
only 21 patients with BCLC 0 / A).
Authors should discuss possible limitations of their study - the use of ELISA kit
that detects specific OPN epitopes (in this case, total Osteopontin). Osteopontin
protein undergoes post-translational modification and cleavage by enzymes, and
studies have reported that cleaved Osteopontin may exhibit a better correlation
with disease stage / severity.
Abstract should be re-written to convey key messages - that Osteopontin levels
are a) upregulated with ALD cirrhosis (fibrosis? - see comments above), b)
correlated with clinical severity (CP), and c) HCC BCLC stage, but d) was a poor
biomarker of early HCC.
Minor:
Discussion on points raised above - recruitment, sampling of plasma, confouding
factors, size of cohort.
Please check references - there is duplication - 14 and 23
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:
My research expertise includes Osteopontin biology
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0304-4 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Relation of cholesterol metabolism to pediatric gallstone disease. A
retrospective controlled study
Version:1Date:5 February 2015
Reviewer: Andrea Cariati
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revision
Introduction: classification of gallstones please read the article classifiaction of
gallstones in western countries indian j surgery, cariati a. Brown pigment
gallstones could be classified according to the studies of Maki, Cetta (Ann Surg)
Carey Martin and cariati A (indian J surg ).
In the material , calculation: brown pigment gallstones cannot be distinguished
only on the basis of cholesterol content but on the basis of calcium palmitate
content; the majority of gallstones with 10-35% cholesterol, in various studies
(Cetta, carey, Soloway, Cariati) are mixed cholesterol gallstones. Discussion
is too focused on liver syntesis of cholesterol and on squalene etc, please could
enrich discussion reporting the role of intestinal absorbption (see martin carey
works) and the role of local, gallbladder mucosa factors (Cariati A Ultrastructural
patology 2003 and clinical research on hepatology and gastroenterology 2013) .
Finally the role of UGT1A variant has been reported with a modification of
Admiran d and Small triangle on ACES 2014 (Archives of clinical and
experimental surgery).
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest 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'