JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-74 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Multicenter Comparison of PEG-IFN 2a or 2b Plus Ribavirin for
Treatment-naive HCV Patient in Favorable IL-28B Polymorphism Dominant Area
Version: 1Date:31 December 2012
Reviewer: Steffen Zopf
Reviewer's report:
Jin and colleagues compared the two different PEG-interferons, alpha-2a and
alpha-2b, in combination with ribavirin in a Korean cohort with chronic hepatitis C
genotype 1 and 2/3. The data were collected in a multicenter trial and analyzed
retrospectively. The authors analyzed data of 661 treatment-naïve patients from
14 sites. This big cohort in a multicenter trial is a major plus factor of the study.
The authors themselves named some of the limitations of the study: The study
has only a retrospective design, the data of dose modifications and AE
monitoring were not strictly controlled and RVR rates were not evaluates for the
whole cohort. The third point is due to the collection date of data from 2000-2008,
where RVR was no standard at the early time points. Nevertheless the question
posed by the authors is well defined and the methods are well described. The
data are sound with the above named limitations.
The main findings of the manuscript are the equivalence SVR rates of both
PEG-IFNs in an Asian cohort.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. A point of critique is missing data of IL-28B genotype data from the cohort. The
authors discuss the favorable IL-28B genotype in Korea and conclude from this
the well virologic response rates. If possible, maybe with frozen serum samples, I
would recommend to analyze IL28B genotype in a fraction of the treated
population. These data would strengthen the evidence of the manuscript. If it is
not possible because of missing probes this fact should be discussed in the
manuscript.
2. If there are no own IL-28B genotype data, the title of the manuscript is
misleading. I would recommend describing the Korean/Asian population in the
title.
3. Meanwhile the combination therapy with protease inhibitors, PEG-IFN and
Ribavirin is standard in genotype 1 patients. Nevertheless, the backbone of the
therapy is still PEG-IFN, why the conclusion of the manuscript is important. The
protease inhibitors and the role of pegylated interferons (backbone) in the triple
therapy should be discussed in the manuscript.
4. In Table 2 the SVR-rates of genotype 1 have to be corrected (62.2% vs.
64.2%).
5. The small numbers of histology samples, especially in the PEG-IFN alpha-2b
group, should be discussed. Are there any elastometry-data available?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-74 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Multicenter Comparison of PEG-IFN 2a or 2b Plus Ribavirin for
Treatment-naive HCV Patient in Korean Population
Version: 2Date:5 March 2013
Reviewer: Eckart Schott
Reviewer's report:
I feel that the authors have addressed most of the reviewers' concerns
adequately. There remain a few concerns that should be addressed before the
article can be published:
• Page 14, 2nd paragraph: it is not clear, which value relates to which treatment
arm or to RVR/no-RVR, respectively.
• Page 22, 1st paragraph: No further clinial trials will be conducting with dual
treatment of interferon/ribavirin. The sentence should be deleted.
• The statistics in table 4 still need to be clarified: The authors explain in their
rebuttal letter that they compared the frequency of grade 1-2 with the frequency
of grade 3 AEs (p=0.23). However, the legend to the table states that p=0.23
stands for the comparison of IFNa2a vs. IFNa2b. Which is correct? If it is for
IFNa2a vs IFNa2b, does the p apply to the comparison of grade 1/2 side effects
or of grade 3 side effects?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have received lecture fees, travel support and compensation for advisory
boards from Roche and MSD.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-74 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Multicenter Comparison of PEG-IFN 2a or 2b Plus Ribavirin for
Treatment-naive HCV Patient in Korean Population
Version: 2Date:18 March 2013
Reviewer: Steffen Zopf
Reviewer's report:
My comments have been addressed.
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 have received lecture and consulting fees from MSD and Roche.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-72 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Different healing process of esophageal large mucosal defects by
endoscopic mucosal dissection between with and without steroid injection in an
animal model
Version: 1Date:23 January 2013
Reviewer: Satoshi Ono
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript is written about histopathological process forming postoperative
stricture after esophageal ESD with and without local injection of steroid. It
seems very interesting and helpful for further investigation about prevention of
postoperative stricture. However, it has some problems before acceptance in its
present form.
Major point:
1. A number of pig with local injection of steroid is too small. It seems preferable
to treat more pigs with local injection of steroid. If authors want to evaluate
histopathological effect of steroid local injection, specimen of pigs one and three
weeks after ESD with steroid local injection is necessary.
2. Was it necessary to treat pigs with circumferential ESD? To evaluate only
histopathological changes after ESD, circumferential ESD is not necessarily
required. Authors could have evaluated more specimens from a single pig if they
had performed multisessions of focal ESDs in a single pig.
Minor point:
1. A pig with steroid local injection underwent multiple sessions of balloon
dilatations. Balloon dilatations might have effects upon histopathological
assessment of specimen from this pig.
2. It is preferable to show quantitative pathological findings as graphs in
chronological order.
3. It seems unusual that diameter of GIF-Q240 is written in Result section, not in
Material and Method section.
4. Please mention recommendation about timing or dosage of steroid injection to
prevent postoperative stricture if possible.
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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-72 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Different healing process of esophageal large mucosal defects by
endoscopic mucosal dissection between with and without steroid injection in an
animal model
Version: 1Date:26 January 2013
Reviewer: Nobuyuki Matsuhashi
Reviewer's report:
An interesting study.
Minor Essential Revisions
*Fig1B: Please indicate the area of the granulation tissue by ## arrow.
*Fig2A: In general, it is rather difficult to evaluate mild to moderate stenosis by
endoscopy. Fig2A cannot rule out stenosis. Radiological examination would be
much better to evaluate the stenosis. Therefore, adding data of esophagography
is strongly recommended, which will greatly enhance the positive message of this
article. Indeed, "Stricture fomation was unremarkable" seems to be an
exaggeration. The authors have to include discussion regarding this point.
*Fig5: Labels C and D are wrong.
*Table 1 should be changed into a Figure.
*The 3rd paragraph in the results section: The auhtors state "dilation ....was
gently performed", but "gently" is not enough. They have to state the strength
qunatitatively (by atm etc.).
*The 1st paragraph in "Quantitative pathological findings" in Results section:
Data are presented as (n=5) etc. Does "n=5" mean that 5
pigs were evaluated, or 5 sections in a single pig were evaluated? Please make it
clear.
*The last paragraph in Results section: The authors have to present the
thickness of the muscle in the steroid-treated pig.
*the 3rd paragraph in Discussion: The authors state "..human esophagus
consists of the smooth muscle .....", but the human esophagus consists of both
striated and smooth muscle.
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:
The first author is going to work in the reviewer's institution 3 months later.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-72 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Different healing process of esophageal large mucosal defects by
endoscopic mucosal dissection between with and without steroid injection in an
animal model
Version: 3Date:4 March 2013
Reviewer: Satoshi Ono
Reviewer's report:
Authors have revised the manuscript as reviewers recommended.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-72 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Different healing process of esophageal large mucosal defects by
endoscopic mucosal dissection between with and without steroid injection in an
animal model
Version: 3Date:9 March 2013
Reviewer: Nobuyuki Matsuhashi
Reviewer's report:
The paper has been properly revised.
Language correction by a native English speaker is recommended.
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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-71 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Chronic Diarrhea as the Presenting Feature of Systemic Amyloidosis
Associated with Multiple Myeloma: a case report
Version: 1Date:27 January 2013
Reviewer: Bo Shen
Reviewer's report:
No coi.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-70 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Progressive balloon dilatation following hepaticojejunostomy improves
outcome of bile duct stricture after iatrogenic biliary injury
Version: 1Date:22 February 2013
Reviewer: shuguang wang
Reviewer's report:
Manuscript: Luo Z, et al: “Progressive Balloon Dilatation Following
Hepaticojejunostomy Improves Outcome of Bile Duct Stricture after Iatrogenic
Biliary Injury”.
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a new procedure, consisting of
progressive balloon dilation following hepaticojejunostomy, in the treatment of
iatrogenic biliary stricture. They showed that this technique was effective. The
data was sound and it may give light to a potential better strategy for iatrogenic
biliary stricture. However there are a few concerns that should be addressed:
1. This paper desribed the usefulness of balloon dilatation to prevent bile duct
stenosis following hepaticojejunostomy for bile duct stricture after iatrogenic
biliary injury. However, endoscopic treatment for bile duct stricture following
surgery is popularly performed using balloon dilatation, and plastic or metallic
stents. Authors should stress and discuss about this procedure. (Minor Essential
Revisions)
2. What determined which patient underwent which procedure, this is of
importance as these might introduce confounding by indication. (Minor Essential
Revisions)
3. What were the unexpected adverse effects of this new procedure? The
authors do not mention what the rate of complications was in the balloon
dilatation group. (Minor Essential Revisions)
4. Change “#” in Table 1. (Minor Essential Revisions)
5. Table 2 lack statistical analysis between HJ and HJPBD groups. (Minor
Essential Revisions)
6. The study should add the content of comparing the difference of operative
information between HJ and HJPBD, such as operation time and others. (Minor
Essential Revisions)
7. The references should be updated, as there is only one article within latest 3
years that has been cited. (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-13-70 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Progressive balloon dilatation following hepaticojejunostomy improves
outcome of bile duct stricture after iatrogenic biliary injury
Version: 1Date:3 March 2013
Reviewer: Gi-Young Ko
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
1, p4. The last sentence of intruduction should be deleted.
Minor compulsory revisions
1. figure 2A is a fluoroscopic image not a MR image.
2. some misprinted words, such as 'jejune'
Discretionary revisions
1. Were there no accidents during insertion of a T-tube and balloon catheters to
non-dilated extrahepatic bile ducts?
2. What were your bases for initiation of ballooning (1 week after operation) & 2-4
hours inflation maintenance for each inflation?
3, Were there no accidents during removal of a T-tube and balloon catheters?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-69 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Remifentanil ameliorates intestinal ischemia-reperfusion injury
Version: 1Date:20 November 2012
Reviewer: Neil Gerard Docherty
Reviewer's report:
This maunscript examines the potential of single bolus treatment with a synthetic
mu-opiod agonist remifentanil (1ug/kg) to protect against intestinal
ischemia-reperfusion injury in C57BL6 mice, as induced by 30 minute occlusion
of the superior mesenteric artery.
This builds on a literature base focussed on ischemic pre-conditioning and the
role of endogenous and exogenous opioids. The work is justified on the basis
that remifentanil has been used in other models and is attractive given its short
plasma half-life and hence limited potential to promote/exacerbate sirgical ileus.
End-points were measured in plasma (IL-6) and small intestinal tissue (MDA and
histologicial scoring) recovered at 60 minutes post-reperfusion. Intestinal
segments were stratified into proximal (jejunal) and distal (ileal) sections for
analysis. Chi2 and Mann-Whitney tests were used for group comparisons.
The authors demonstrate a reduction in histological grade in the reminfentanil
group, most notable in the analysis of distal segments. This parallels relative
reduction in local measures of MDA and systemic measures of IL-6.
The question posed by the authors is well defined and the methods are
appropriate and well described. The data are sound but incomplete
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. In terms of optimal scientific method, the lack of control non IRI groups does
not allow the reviewer to assess the validity of the scoring system, particularly
with regard to mild grades of inflammation in which the characteristic features
have potential to resemble preparatation artefacts.
The authors should grade the intestines of a group of control mice and include
this data. These need not necessarily be sham operated.
2. Measurement of the plasma IL-6 levels should be underpinned by measures in
baseline control animals.
Minor Revisions
1. Discussion of Bcl-2/BAX should make reference to their role in apoptosis
2. The explanation of a reduced difference between treatment groups in proximal
regions as being a consequence of collateral perfusion is not coherent with the
observation that injury in saline treated animals is similar proximally and distally.
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 competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-69 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Remifentanil ameliorates intestinal ischemia-reperfusion injury
Version: 1Date:28 November 2012
Reviewer: Carlos Medina Martin
Reviewer's report:
Re: 'Remifentanil ameliorates intestinal ischemia-reperfusion injury '
Steven SC Cho, Ina Rudloff, Philip J Berger, Marcel F Nold, Michael G Irwin, Wei
Cheng and Claudia A Nold-Petry
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? Yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described? Yes
3. Are the data sound? Yes
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? Yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data? Yes
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? No
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished? Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? Yes
9. Is the writing acceptable? Yes
Please make your review as constructive and detailed as possible in your
comments so that authors have the opportunity to overcome any serious
deficiencies that you find and please also divide your comments into the following
categories:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
Dear Editor,
In this study, authors show that Remifentanil is useful in the management of
intestinal ischaemia/reperfusion in mice by assessing histological damage, MDA
and IL-6. This is a commendable aim as there is little known on the
treatment/preconditioning of this disease with severe consequences. Although
the subject matter of the paper is of interest, the main concern is that some of the
data sets seem rather preliminary and mechanistic studies are completely
absent. Overall, this study does not provide a solid insight into the action of
Remifentanil on intestinal ischemia/reperfusion. More studies should be carried
out in order to elucidate how remifentanil works in this condition, for instance any
affect of the drug on MAPK phosphorylation.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-69 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Remifentanil ameliorates intestinal ischemia-reperfusion injury
Version: 2Date:5 April 2013
Reviewer: Neil Gerard Docherty
Reviewer's report:
The authors have acted on the recommendations in the previous review.
No further revisions are requested
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-68 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome in Primary Care: An Exploratory
Randomised Controlled Trial of Mebeverine, Methylcellulose, Placebo and a
Self-management website.
Version: 2Date:21 December 2012
Reviewer: Per G Farup
Reviewer's report:
The paper reports the results of a placebo controlled RCT with factorial design
comparing common drug therapies and web-based self-management treatment.
The idea and the design (factorial design) are brilliant for testing independent
treatment alternatives. The paper has some major weaknesses:
• What were the aims? According to the protocol (published in BMC
Gastroenterology 2010; 10: 136) and the paper, there were two primary aims
(IBS SSS and IBS QoL). I prefer one primary aim. According to the registration in
ClinicalTrials.gov there was only one primary aim (IBS SSS). Why has the
primary aim been changed? ClincicalTrials.gov refers to IBS QoL as a secondary
aim. The protocol and the paper refer to several secondary aims, none of them
have been mentioned in ClinicalTrials.gov.
• My main objection is the conclusion of the paper both in the abstract and the
paper. The correct conclusion is that none of the interventions had a significant
effect. I prefer a presentation of the differences in IBS-SSS (the primary aim)
between the treatment modalities with confidence intervals. Could a clinically
significant difference have been missed (type II error)?
• The discussion should focus on the fact that no significant effect was shown,
and in addition mention the finding related to the secondary aims which are
usable primarily for generating new hypotheses. Is it worth performing a new trial
to show an effect on SGA (dichotomized – see below) when IBS SSS and IBS
QoL remained unchanged?
• Some questions about the statistics. SGA is a 5 point scale, why was it
dichtomized? HAD anxiety and HAD depression were handled differently. Why
was HAD anxiety used as a continuous scale (with mean values) and HAD
depression (and Enablement score) as grouped (ordered) variable? According to
the paper ITT analyses were performed, but there is no information about the
method used to handle missing data. Was “last observation carried forward” or
“imputation of missing data etc… used”
• The trial is mentioned as an explorative study. Was it an explorative study when
the aim was to test a specified hypothesis?
• The main finding according to the discussion was that it was feasible to recruit
patients and perform this trial (not very interesting). If screening of 5700 patients
was necessary to include 135 patients, the external validity of the study is
questionable.
• I have not mentioned my minor concerns.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-67 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Activation of Liver FGF21 in Hepatocarcinogenesis and During Hepatic
Stress
Version: 2Date:15 January 2013
Reviewer: Toshnari Takamura
Reviewer's report:
Yang et al. have reported up-regulation of hepatic expression of FGF21 in
response to possible stress associated with carcinogenesis from observation in
cultured cell, mice and human samples. Although they report various disease
conditions leading to upregulation of FGF21, most of these findings are not novel
and seem still phenomenological. Their data do not support their conclusion that
seems over-stated from incomplete data. The following points should be
improved before accept for publication.
Major points
1. Most of the stimuli leading to FGF21 presented are already known. However,
the finding that loss of p53 upregulates hepatic expression of FGF21 seems to
be novel. Therefore, authors should investigate whether p53 binds to or
competes with specific area in the FGF21 gene promoter by using a ChIP assay
or gel shift assay.
2. Is p53 dysfunction associated with hepatic stresses during carcinogenesis,
such as PHx, DEN, or loss of loss of SAV1, MST1/MST2 or PTEN, that
upregulate hepatic expression of FGF21?
3. Although authors show representative pictures of FGF21 staining in Fig. 5 and
6, some exceptions seem to exist as authors explained in the result section. For
example, some normal liver sections were positive in FGF21. If authors propose
diagnostic significance of FGF21 in various stress conditions in the liver
diseases, authors at least should summarize in the table the positivity rate of
FGF21 staining in each disease condition.
4. Because immunohistochemistry lacks quantitative significance, blood levels of
FGF21 in various liver diseases are needed together with immunohistochemical
analyses of FGF21 in the liver sections for their conclusion.
5. It has recently been reported that impairment of mitochondrial respiratory
chain by its inhibitors or autophagy deficiency induces FGF21 both in the liver
and skeletal muscle. Authors should address this finding in relation to their data.
6. It seems difficult for non-pathologists to understand the immunohistochemistry
data of FGF21 staining in Fig. 5 and 6. Authors should assist readers
understand, for example, the border between tumor and non-tumor area.
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 have no conflicts of interest relating to this paper.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-67 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Activation of Liver FGF21 in Hepatocarcinogenesis and During Hepatic
Stress
Version: 2Date:1 February 2013
Reviewer: Katsutaka Oishi
Reviewer's report:
This paper is an interesting and clearly written survey-based study on the hepatic
FGF21 as a stress marker. Considerable evidences suggest that hepatic FGF21
is an indicator of liver function and stress. However, the authors should consider
several points before publication.
Minor comments
1. My concern is the species differences in the physiological function of hepatic
FGF21. Fasting and starvation remarkably induces the hepatic FGF21
expression in rodents, but not in humans.
2. PPARs are involved in the transcriptional regulation of FGF21 as mentioned in
the Discussion section. P53-dependent transactivation of FGF21 is an interesting
and important finding in this study. Please discuss the possibility about the
interaction between these mechanisms.
3. Blood sampling is not non-invasive but minimally-invasive method for patients.
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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-67 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Activation of Liver FGF21 in Hepatocarcinogenesis and During Hepatic
Stress
Version: 3Date:19 March 2013
Reviewer: Toshnari Takamura
Reviewer's report:
Authors responded well to my comments.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-67 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Activation of Liver FGF21 in Hepatocarcinogenesis and During Hepatic
Stress
Version: 3Date:28 March 2013
Reviewer: Morichika Konishi
Reviewer's report:
The authors have managed to provide sufficient answers to my previous
comments.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-67 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Activation of Liver FGF21 in Hepatocarcinogenesis and During Hepatic
Stress
Version: 3Date:1 April 2013
Reviewer: Katsutaka Oishi
Reviewer's report:
The authors responded adequately to most of my comments.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-66 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Liver disease and 30-day mortality after colorectal cancer surgery: A
Danish population-based cohort study
Version: 2Date:2 December 2012
Reviewer: Lene Hjerrild H Iversen
Reviewer's report:
It is a well-written paper describing the impact of liver disease on 30-day mortality
after surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC). The topic and the results are very
interesting.
My main concern (Major compulsory revision) is that the authors seemingly don’t
distinguish between ‘type of admission’ and ‘priority of surgery’. This could
explain why the authors find an extremely high rate of acute CRC surgery even
among patients without liver disease, 32%. According to the annual review from
Danish Colorectal Cancer Group (www.dccg.dk) this rate is only 14%. In
Methods the authors report that the DNRP contain data about ‘the type of
admission (acute or elective)’, but in results and discussion they only report
‘priority of surgery’. Acute admission may not result in acute surgery. If the
authors really do mean acute surgery, a definition of acute surgery would be
helpful.
Minor comments (discretionary revisions):
Methods, page 5: ‘Non-eradicative procedures’ is an uncommon word in surgical
respect. A better and more appropriate word would be ‘non-resectional
procedures’
Discussion: Previous studies could be presented a bit more concise.
Figure 1: Why do the authors present 30-day survival curves when they do not
discuss the curves? – for instance survival of cirrhotic patients deviate from
non-cirrhotic patients less than 15 days after surgery. Otherwise presentation in a
table is sufficient.
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' below
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-66 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Liver disease and 30-day mortality after colorectal cancer surgery: A
Danish population-based cohort study
Version: 2Date:12 February 2013
Reviewer: marco montorsi
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary revisions
Due to the long period of the study, it may be of interest to know if AA found any
difference in mortality when the study period is divided in two or more years
range .
Are there more specific information about the causes of death both overall and in
the different study groups ( no liver disease vs other groups ) ?
Because mortality may be related also to hospital surgical volume and specific
experience , do the AA can retrieve data about this association ( do high-quality
or referral hospitals have lower risk of operative mortality for those high-risk
patients ?).
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-66 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Liver disease and 30-day mortality after colorectal cancer surgery: A
Danish population-based cohort study
Version: 3Date:1 April 2013
Reviewer: Lene Hjerrild H Iversen
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions:
In Table 2 there is no explanation on what have been controlled for in adjusted
analysis, which should be inserted (just like in Table 3).
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-65 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic gallbladder stenting for acute cholecystitis: a retrospective
study of 46 elderly patients aged 65 years or older
Version: 3Date:18 February 2013
Reviewer: Steve Pereira
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer's report
In this retrospective study, Makawa and colleagues report on the safety and
efficacy of endoscopic gall bladder stenting in elderly patients with acute
cholecystitis who were poor surgical candidates, with 27 of 31 having either
cerebral infarction or dementia. Endoscopic gall bladder stenting (EGS) was
successful in 80% without immediate complications, with the remaining patients
going on to standard percutaneous drainage or aspiration.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. In their accompanying letter dated 7 january 2013, the authors state that the
study was ethically approved and all patients gave written informed consent, yet
this was a retrospective study, 40/46 of the procedures were emergencies and
27/46 patients had cerebral infarction or dementia, so it is difficult to understand
how this was possible.
2. On page 5 it is stated that there were no immediate postprocedure
complications, which is extraordinary given that they were high risk elderly
patients undergoing emergency ERCP for gallbladder sepsis +/- CBD stone
removal. There is little detail as to how data were captured or complications
assessed, which may have been underestimated in a retrospective study. If
possible, it would be helpful to give some detail as to how sick the patients were
(ITU support, intubated, inotropes etc) and some information about the ERCP
and recovery setting. Reassuringly, the patients who had a successful EGS were
able to be discharged within a week.
Minor Essential Revisions
3. On page 6 it is stated with elective EGS was performed in 5 patients after
PTGBD, but the rationale for this is not clear. Were all these 5 patients in the
group of 31 patients in whom EGS was permanent and cholecystectomy not
performed?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-65 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic gallbladder stenting for acute cholecystitis: a retrospective
study of 46 elderly patients aged 65 years or older
Version: 3Date:10 March 2013
Reviewer: Kazuo Hara
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. 65 years is usually not elderly. Why did you select 65 years or more?
2. Authors should omit 6 patients data after initial treatment from other hospitals.
After drainage, we can't evaluate the safty and efficacy about the EGS.
3. One patient was died of aspiration pneumonia after EGS within one month.
Aspiration pneumonia is a famous complication of endoscopic treatments.
Sequelae of cerebral infarction patients are highrisk of aspiration pneumonia.
ESG is really safe for cerebral disease patients? PTGBA may be safe. Please
discuss this point.
4. Authors should explain the difference between EGS and ETGBD in detail.
Indication, effect, complications, advantage, disadvantage,etc.
5. Why was permanent EGS useful for prevention of cholecystitis? In fact, stents
may be occluded. Authors should explain in this point clearly.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-64 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Comparative proteomics study on liver mitochondria of primary biliary
cirrhosis mouse model
Version: 3Date:12 July 2012
Reviewer: Michael Miller
Reviewer's report:
Major
1. Please make it more clear why the 8 validated proteins were chosen from the
29 differentially expressed proteins. What criteria were used for selecting these 8
proteins?
2. Please make it more clear how you arrived at the upper and lower limits for
iTRAQ expression - explain the process of deciding 0.72 - 1.4 as the lower and
upper cut offs for significance. Did you make any effort to assess the labelling
error associated with the iTRAQ labelling process?? ie did you have a parent
control sample labelled with 113 and 114 and compare the ratios??
Minor
1. Figure 2 legends are muddled - the main text suggests Fig 2C is a typical
spectra and 2D is the isoelectric points - not so.
2. Numerous grammatical errors throughout - these need to be addressed and
corrected
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-64 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Comparative proteomics study on liver mitochondria of primary biliary
cirrhosis mouse model
Version: 3Date:8 November 2012
Reviewer: Jeffrey T.-J. Huang
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
The manuscript by Li et al described a comparative mitochondrial proteomic
study in primary biliary cirrhosis mouse model. This is an interesting study,
particularly the time dependent changes in the 17b-HSD8, ECHDC2, ADH levels
in the mouse model. A few major points and minor points are listed below, which
I hope will help improve the quality of this manuscript.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. From figure 2, it seems that only a pair of pooled sample from each group was
compared and there was no technical replication done on the same experiment.
This issue was addressed partially with the Western blot data in Figure 4.
However, for those which were not validated, there is some uncertainty. A
statement of this limitation should be included.
2. Page 6, authors state that “…only fold changes >1.4 or <0.72.” will be
considered significant. Justification is required to provide a basis for this as there
is no statistics behind these thresholds.
3. The description needs to be better referenced (and perhaps more conserved
in the interpretation as in some cases there is no direct data in this study to
support it). A couple of examples,
a. authors suggest the up-regulation of the 11 proteins in oxidation/reduction as
an indication of oxidative stress but it would be just reflecting a higher demand of
energy by the inflammatory cells. References are also required to support the
oxidative stress hypothesis.
b. Page 12, authors suggest the up-regulation of 17b-HSD8 can lead to a
decrease of estrogen concentration, which might result in the destruction of bile
ducts etc. Data from the histology of these samples will be very useful to support
this claim (together with a ref).
Minor Essential Revisions
4. The individual peptide signals of proteins listed in Table 1 and 2 needs to be
listed in a supplementary data.
5. The false discovery rate of protein identification (at peptide and protein levels)
should be stated (page 6).
6. Figure 4A, Control and model figures are not aligned with the table on the left.
Also, the reason of using ATPb as a loading control in Figure 4 should be
explained.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-64 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Comparative proteomics study on liver mitochondria of primary biliary
cirrhosis mouse model
Version: 4Date:10 January 2013
Reviewer: Jeffrey T.-J. Huang
Reviewer's report:
Major comments
1. [previous comment 2]: The use of cut-offs based on other studies is not
appropriate. The paper cited (e.g. Datta et al, JPR) did evaluate their own
technical variability in order to define the cut-off values. These cut-offs, however,
is lab/individual dependent and are required to be tested statistically in their own
lab. This is particularly important when relatively moderate differences (~40%)
were found and when some discrepancies at the peptide levels are significant (as
shown in the supplementary tables).
2. Given that there is some uncertainly regarding the results (from previous
comment 1), the abstract should be modified so results that have been validated
should be emphasized instead of focusing the technology.
3. [Comment 3b]: Even the authors did not observe the destruction of bile ducts,
it remains to be a valuable information and should be included in the discussion.
Minor
A typo in the last paragraph of Discussion- “antibododies” should read
“antibodies”.
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-13-64 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Comparative proteomics study on liver mitochondria of primary biliary
cirrhosis mouse model
Version: 4Date:16 January 2013
Reviewer: Michael Miller
Reviewer's report:
the points raised in my initial report have been adequately addressed
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-63 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Micro-histology of pancreatic masses submitted to endoscopic
ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the suspicion of metastatic disease.
Version: 2Date:1 December 2012
Reviewer: Paula Ghaneh
Reviewer's report:
Comments:
This paper looks at EUS guided micro histology in the diagnosis of metastatic
lesions in the pancreas.
1. I am not clear on the inclusion criteria for the study. The authors need to state
clearly what the inclusion criteria are - how did they select their patient
population?
2. Clearer description of patients who presented with a pancreas mass and no
previous history and those who did have a previous history of cancer.
3. Statistical plan is lacking. Variables should be quoted as median and range+/-
95% confidence intervals not mean.
4. Need a description of how sensitivity, specificity have been calculated and in
this instance ROC should be part of the statistical plan. There is no mention of
what statistical package the authors have used – this should be included.
5. The results are not clearly presented.
6. The demographic table is confusing what does control of disease mean, initial
staging and before identification of the primary cancer?
7. Figures needed – ROC curve, survival curves would be helpful.
8. Do the authors have any evidence from these patients concerning the clinical
utility of cytology?
9. The authors need to take note of the following references: DeWitt et al
Pancreas. 2012 Nov 9 49 patients. Pancreatology. 2012 Brais et al.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-62 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Santorinicele without pancreas divisum pathophysiology: Initial clinical and
radiographical investigations
Version: 2Date:25 February 2013
Reviewer: Michitaka Suzuki
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions
Santorinicele is a rare condition, so many physician who is not major in
biliary-pancreatology do not what it is. This article is valuable to provide accurate
knowledge to them. So it is desirable that the authors include more images or
illustrations in the article to make readers easily understand about Santorinicele.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-62 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Santorinicele without pancreas divisum pathophysiology: Initial clinical and
radiographical investigations
Version: 2Date:8 March 2013
Reviewer: Masakuni Kobayashi
Reviewer's report:
Authors investigated the prevalence of Santorinicele without pancreas
divisumpathophysiology (SWOPP) and its clinical and radiographical features
comparing to those of Santorinicele with pancreas divisum (SWPD). They
concluded that they reported the 2nd to 6th cases of SWOPP and revealed that it
is quite a rare condition. They also showed that SWOPP is often found in elderly
patients suffering from chronic pancreatitis and referred to the possibility of its
acquired pathology. They examined all the MR studies of as many as 4940
subjects. Their effort was very great and their new finding was novel and
interesting.
Major Essential Revisions:
None.
Minor Essential Revisions:
None.
Discretionary Revisions:
None.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-13-61 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Studies on a possible role of Escherichia coli in propagation and
perpetuation of the gut chronic inflamation in ulcerative colitis.
Version: 1Date:13 November 2012
Reviewer: Georgina L Hold
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1) Abstract background is inappropriate providing no background information
2) Whole manuscript needs checking for spelling errors and proof reader input
recommended. Scientific meaning of certain statements is lacking/lost - example
is description of biopsy sampling from patients (abstract methods).
3) Was unchanged tissue sample collection from the same patients as the
inflamed tissue.
4) in the abstract it is unclear what was the status of the controls
5) Control group is not a suitable control group consideration should be given to
selecting a more appropriate control group.
6) Need histological confirmation of normal mucosa in both UC and IBS controls
7) Information on UC treatment regimens is essential.
8) How long were biopsies frozen for – was it consistent
9) Methods data is insufficient to understand what has been done. For example
DNA extraction and PCR strategies alongwith quantification approaches. It is not
possible to understand what has been done.
Minor Essential Revisions
1) E. coli not E.coli (include a space)
2) Change the ‘,’ in p values to ‘.’
3) Always italicise E. coli
4) Change flora to microbiota
5) Reference statement lines 65-67
6) Consistently use abbreviations – sometimes E. coli, other times full name is
used.
7) Lines 209-212 – description of E. coli isolation locations is inadequate
8) Q-PCR and culture data highly different in bacterial numbers - provide
explanation
9) How can you effectively generate a global cfu count based on methodology
used?
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-13-61 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Possible role of Escherichia coli in propagation and perpetuation of chronic
inflammation in ulcerative colitis
Version: 3Date:7 March 2013
Reviewer: Georgina L Hold
Reviewer's report:
Minor typographical errors remain within the text. Sume instead of sum and
inflammatorily is not a word.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-13-61 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Possible role of Escherichia coli in propagation and perpetuation of chronic
inflammation in ulcerative colitis
Version: 3Date:10 March 2013
Reviewer: Serena Schippa
Reviewer's report:
This article has been revised and may be published,
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.