JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02982-2 (2023)

Title: Risk assessment of rectal anastomotic leakage (RAREAL) after DIXON in non-
emergency patients with rectal cancer: a retrospective study
Version: 0 Date: 02 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
- The authors stated: "All surgeries were performed by experienced and skilled colorectal
surgeons." Please define the minimum number of Dixon operations performed by any surgeons.
- Please replace lower and upper quartiles with first and third, respectively.
- Please replace the incorrect terms 'univariate' and 'multivariate' with 'univariable' and
'multivariable', respectively.
- There is always a loss of information when transforming a continuous variable into a categorical
one. Hence I cannot fully understand the authors' choice to convert HbA1c.
- The final scoring system with instructions should be provided at least in the supplements.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02982-2 (2023)

Title: Risk assessment of rectal anastomotic leakage (RAREAL) after DIXON in non-
emergency patients with rectal cancer: a retrospective study
Version: 4 Date: 02 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors report a retrospective analysis of patients with rectal
surgery. Its main strength is the sample size and the level of details available.
There is one fundamental issue I see - the authors have included patients with and without a
defunctioning stoma in the analysis. The post-operative course of these two groups are different.
Even though both development and validation groups contained similar proportions, I feel this
is methodologically flawed.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The main issue is in including patients with and without stoma together, and I have explained
this above.
Table 1 states most patients (nearly 80%) did not have a malignancy. The title states this is a
study on rectal cancer patients. Can you please clarify?
Was ICG or other technique used to assess perfusion? Since one finding of the study relates to
perfusion, this must be included in the discussion.
The majority of leaks had a score of 5, no leaks were seen for the score of 4. Can you explain this?
The style of writing needs improvement - e.g., "intestinal pollution"
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02982-2 (2023)

Title: Risk assessment of rectal anastomotic leakage (RAREAL) after DIXON in non-
emergency patients with rectal cancer: a retrospective study
Version: 8 Date: 07 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
No - there are minor issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have addressed all of the granular issues I highighted.
The fundamental issue I highlighted earlier remains. The authors have included those with and
without stoma in one group. Additionally, they have not considred asymtomatic anastomotic
leaks. The presence of a stoma clearly reduces anastomotic leaks -
https://wjso.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12957-014-0417-1#:~:text=The%20present
%20meta%2Danalysis%20demonstrated,%2C%20Figure%202)%2C%20respectively.
The authors should at least do a subgroup comparison between those with and without stoma,
or do a single analysis.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors need to either remove patients with a stoma from the analysis, or do a subgroup
analysis.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02982-2 (2023)

Title: Risk assessment of rectal anastomotic leakage (RAREAL) after DIXON in non-
emergency patients with rectal cancer: a retrospective study
Version: 9 Date: 27 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Yes, the authors have addressed the fundamental issue I had
highlighted in my original review. The new analysis and interpretation is scientifically correct.
I believe this paper can now be considered for publication.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
None
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02983-1 (2023)

Title: Anti-HBc: a significant host predictor of spontaneous HBsAg seroclearance in chronic
hepatitis B patients - a retrospective longitudinal study
Version: 1 Date: 31 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors did plenty of work to demonstrate that plasma anti-HBc level can serve as a potential
predictor for subsequent HBsAg seroclearance. It has good clinical value for predicting the
prognosis of the chronic hepatitis B patients. But some questions need to be answered as follows:
1.Did the patients in control group not received antiviral treatment yet? The powerful, low-
resistance antivirals are readily available.
2.The plasma anti-HBc levels at 1 – 0 years before HBsAg seroclearance, at the cut-off value of
82.50 COI, the sensitivity and specificity for discriminating s-losers from controls was 68.3%
and 90.0%, respectively. Can try to increase the sensitivity of the forecast by combining the
decline of the plasma anti-HBc level? Or whether the decline of the plasma anti-HBc level has
predictve value?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02983-1 (2023)

Title: Anti-HBc: a significant host predictor of spontaneous HBsAg seroclearance in chronic
hepatitis B patients - a retrospective longitudinal study
Version: 2 Date: 12 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
Many thanks to the author for accepting the suggestion and making some changes to the article.
The authors introduce qHBsAg into the prediction of HBsAg clearance, Among the patients
with qHBsAg <100 IU/mL, 88.2% patients with anti-HBc <82.50 COI could develop HBsAg
seroclearance within 1 year. The predictive value of HBsAg clearance was higher.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02938-6 (2023)

Title: Network meta-analysis on efficacy and safety of different biologics for ulcerative colitis
Version: 3 Date: 03 Jun 2023
Reviewer:  Anuraag Jena
Reviewer's report:
Network meta-analysis on efficacy and safety of different biologics for ulcerative colitis
The authors have done a great work in summarizing the evidence in NMA. There are some
queries that they could explain.
The top 3 drugs in UC  in the network analysis should be mentioned in the abstract. This should
be in terms of both efficacy and safety.
Were the Phase 2 studies also clubbed with Phase 3 RCT in the included studies? As dosages
of newer drugs might be a confounding factor. Phase 3 trials will have established dosage with
maximum efficacy.
Were the outcomes similar in mild versus mod-severe UC?
Were the outcomes different in induction and maintenance RCTs?
What about the outcomes in patients with prior exposure to TNF antagonists?
Did the authors take out data for serious infections in safety outcomes?
What were the concomitant medications in the included RCTs?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02938-6 (2023)

Title: Network meta-analysis on efficacy and safety of different biologics for ulcerative colitis
Version: 3 Date: 18 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
Gu et al present their study titled "Network meta-analysis on efficacy and safety of different
biologics for ulcerative colitis". The study is overall well written  however has a few major
limitations
1. The authors have combined outcomes for mild, moderate and severe UC which is problematic
in terms of clinical applicability
2. The authors do not reports outcomes for induction vs maintainence phase of therapy outcomes
3. The literature search was carried out in 9/2022, therefore several new studies/abstracts are
not included
4. Similar studies have been published on this topic -
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36998249/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34856198/
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02938-6 (2023)

Title: Network meta-analysis on efficacy and safety of different biologics for ulcerative colitis
Version: 5 Date: 27 Jul 2023
Reviewer:  Anuraag Jena
Reviewer's report:
The authors have revised the manuscript. The numbers are not adding up in PRISMA figure.
Please check that.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02980-4 (2023)

Title: Risk factors for the mortality of hepatitis B virus-associated acute-on-chronic liver failure:
A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 20 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
The author aim to clarify the risk factors of mortality of the patients with HBV related ACLF,
However,  there are not included the baseline HBV situation antiviral therapy or whether the
ACLF caused by the discontinuance of antiviral agents, those are the important factors for the
prognosis of ACLF.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02980-4 (2023)

Title: Risk factors for the mortality of hepatitis B virus-associated acute-on-chronic liver failure:
A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 21 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
this review is of important clinical implication but i think to be extended to include more studies ,
however it is of good idea
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02980-4 (2023)

Title: Risk factors for the mortality of hepatitis B virus-associated acute-on-chronic liver failure:
A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 10 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
It is a good study showing the factors responsible for mortality in HBV ACLF
The study is a meta analysis that has shown the known risk factors associated with ACLF
mortality which may not be different in other ACLF patients
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02985-z (2023)

Title: Molecular Analyses of ADAMTS-1, -4, -5, and IL-17A Cytokine Relationship in Patients
with Ulcerative Colitis
Version: 2 Date: 21 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
The paper aimes to present the relationship between IL-17A and ADAMTS-1, -4, and -5 protein.
lt is a topic of interest to the researchers in the related areas but the manuscript quality does
not meet the requirements for publication and is recommended rejection. My detailed reasons
are as follows:
# Although it is mentioned that the paper aims to evaluate the relationship between IL-17A and
ADAMTS-1, -4, and -5 proteins in the Abstract and the Introduction , the results in Figure 4
only show the correlation between the expression of the above four proteins in serum and tissue,
respectively.
# The role of IL-17A and ADAMTS-1, -4, and -5 in the development of UC was not specifically
addressed. Obviously, merely assessing the genes exrepression in the disease state does not
reflect its role.
# The patient information provided in Table 1 is too poor.
# The findings presented in the Results are not consistent with Figure 1.
# The size of the line spacing of the manuscript should be consistent.
#6#In the background section, the introduction of the target genes to be studied is too shallow.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02985-z (2023)

Title: Molecular Analyses of ADAMTS-1, -4, -5, and IL-17A Cytokine Relationship in Patients
with Ulcerative Colitis
Version: 2 Date: 10 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
The research methods and results of the article can be self-consistent, but through the query
of ‘The human protein atlas’ (https://www.proteinatlas.org/), it is suggested that the protein
expression of ADAMTS1 and ADAMTS4 in human colon tissue is very low. The main
expression of ADAMTS5 in human colon tissue is in glandular cells, which is different from
the situation shown in Fig. 2. It is hoped that the authors could explain it in conjunction with
relevant literature.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02985-z (2023)

Title: Molecular Analyses of ADAMTS-1, -4, -5, and IL-17A Cytokine Relationship in Patients
with Ulcerative Colitis
Version: 4 Date: 30 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript quality had met the requirements for publication after revision and was
recommended for acceptance, but there remain problems in the manuscript as follows:
# There is no detailed information related to the progression of UC disease in Table 1;
# There is an error in the description of Figure 2 (B): ADAMTS-4 expression in v ;
# There is no detailed description of each of the large and small figures in Figure 3 (A). If it
is intended to indicate that the small image is part of a larger image, the following revision is
suggested:
a.Mark the specific area where the small image is located in the larger image;
b.Mark the magnification of the small image;
c.Consistent backgrounds;
d.More detailed description of this figure in the manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02985-z (2023)

Title: Molecular Analyses of ADAMTS-1, -4, -5, and IL-17A Cytokine Relationship in Patients
with Ulcerative Colitis
Version: 4 Date: 09 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
The image magnified by 40x is not from a part of the image enlarged by 20x, please adjust or
delete it. The rest is fully explained.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02985-z (2023)

Title: Molecular Analyses of ADAMTS-1, -4, -5, and IL-17A Cytokine Relationship in Patients
with Ulcerative Colitis
Version: 5 Date: 07 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript quality had met the requirements for publication after revision and was
recommended for acceptance, but there remain problems in the manuscript as follows:
# Please revise the format of the P value for significance levels in this article by referring to the
published articles in this journal;
#  Please refer to the published articles in this journal for revisions to the way in which specific
areas are indicated in the larger version of Fig. 3 (A) for smaller images.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02981-3 (2023)

Title: Effectiveness of switching endoscopists for repeat surveillance colonoscopy: a
retrospective study
Version: 0 Date: 03 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
In this article, Okada et al. demonstrated tandem colonoscopy  within three months  by different
endoscopists may  significantly improve  detection of missed lesions from index colonoscopy.
While this study is interesting has its novelty, I have several concerns here:
1. In this article, the main indication for tandem colonoscopy is scheduled EMR for large polyp
during index colonoscopy. On the one hand, the lower missed lesion detection rate of the same
endoscopist can be easily explained due to mental factors; namely, the same endoscopist may
be confident to his/her own indext colonoscopy findings which leads to lesion underdetection
during the second exam. On the other hand, the scenario is quite different from surveillance
colonoscopy, in which the main task of the endoscopist is to find as many polyps as possible
rather than removing the large polyp.
Briefly, I strongly doubt if the findings in  this study can be applied into surveillance colonoscopy
since the two scenarios are highly different.
2.Furthermore, the baseline adenoma detection rate may also impact the results of second
colonoscopy. Since the reason of second procedure is to remove large polyp(s), it is likely the
procedure is performed by an experienced endoscopist. Without the baseline characteristics of
index colonoscopy and the average performance of the first and second operator, it is impossible
to conclude that the changing endoscopists leads to a better result. In fact, the better result by
a second endoscopist may be due to poor performance in the index colonoscopy. The authors
have to provide more evidence to support their argument.
3.The missed lesion detection rate in group D is above 60%, which is much higher than average
colonoscopy adenoma detection rate. This also raises my previous concern that the "good"
performance of the second endoscopist is actually attributed to poor performance by the first one.
I hope the authors can provide more solid evidence, for example, the findings of index
colonoscopy and respective adenoma detection rate of endoscopists in different groups in order
to strengthen the arguments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02981-3 (2023)

Title: Effectiveness of switching endoscopists for repeat surveillance colonoscopy: a
retrospective study
Version: 0 Date: 03 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
In the present report, the authors presented "Effectiveness of switching endoscopists for repeat
surveillance colonoscopy: a retrospective study". The topic of this study is novel and interesting.
However, there are significant biases in this paper. And there are some parts that should be
explained in more detail in the method section.
Major points
1. There were significant differences in the rate of high-resolution scope, the pattern of scope
change, the rate of trainees, and other backgrounds between S group and D group. These could
significantly affect all analyses. Authors should match the backgrounds of the two groups. If
this is not possible, please explain and discuss this in the Discussion section.
2. Were there any rules for determining two groups? Because there were many differences
between two groups. What about diversity of endoscopists? Authors should report the number
of endoscopists in each group.
3. I am concerned about the evaluation of missed polyps. If there are 10 small polyps for CSP and
1 large lesion for EMR in a first colonoscopy, some of the small polyps may be left for the next
EMR according to time limitation for outpatient. In this situation, how do authors differentiate
missed polyps from previously detected polyps? Because the appearance of some small polyps
seems similar and it is difficult to differentiate them.
Minor points
4. Authors presented "The presence of PCCRCs may indicate that the ADR may be inadequate
in terms of its limited value in assessing the number of detected adenomas and missed lesions
[6]" in the Introduction section. The meaning of this sentence is unclear. The authors should
revise this.
5. Regarding exclusion, "inability to evaluate all polyps" in Figure 1 is unclear. Please explain
this in the main text.
6. This study was a retrospective setting. How did the author calculate the withdrawal time for
observation only?
7. Authors should calculate P-value about age, sex and other factors between two groups in
Table 1.
8. Some endoscopists use NBI for routine colonoscopy to improve polyp detection. In this study,
was the whole colon examined by white light imaging only? Please report this in the Methods
section.
9. The authors should analyze the results not only for trainees but also for experts. How about
classifying all endoscopists into three groups (experts, non-experts, trainees)?
10. Authors should explain histopathologic evaluation in this study. According to the definition
of histopathology in this study, SSA/P can be replaced by SSL in Table 3.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02981-3 (2023)

Title: Effectiveness of switching endoscopists for repeat surveillance colonoscopy: a
retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 05 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
In this version of manuscript, the authors have made some revision from previous comments.
However, I still strongly recommend the authors should provide baseline (index) colonoscopy
data from D- and S- group rather than the polyp per colonoscopy only.  The comparison of
two groups of follow-up colonoscopy is only meaningful with adequate information of index
colonoscopy to exclude obvious biases.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02976-0 (2023)

Title: Large common bile duct stones in high-risk elderly patients: Immediate endoscopic stone
removal or elective stone removal? A single-center retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 26 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a very well-written study and the details are nicely described.
I believe this paper is worthy of publication after addressing the following issues:
1.  The cannulation techniques are described in the methods section but not detailed in the
results section.  For example, how many patients needed advanced techniques in each group,
e.g. double-wire techniques.  This might affect the adverse events for each group.
2.  The table lists that about 70% had native papillae.  Only the patients with native papillae
should be included in the study.  Those with prior interventions should not be included.
3.  While the stone clearance rate is higher in the delayed group, the number of ERCPs required
for each group to achieve stone clearance should be detailed.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02976-0 (2023)

Title: Large common bile duct stones in high-risk elderly patients: Immediate endoscopic stone
removal or elective stone removal? A single-center retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 09 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a retrospective study evaluating safety and effectiveness of temporary stent placement
and elective stone removal for elderly with serious comorbidities. The complete stone removal
rate was higher and the rate of post-procedural adverse events was lower in the elective group.
I enjoyed reading the paper, but I have several concerns as follows.
1. The authors concluded that temporary stent placement and elective endoscopic stone removal
is safer than immediate stone removal. Among post-procedural adverse events, cholangitis or
cholecystitis was significantly higher in group A (7.0% vs. 0.9%). I could not understand the
reason, because 65% of patient did not develop concomitant cholangitis. Why was the incidence
of cholangitis or cholecystitis lower among patients who underwent only biliary stent placement
in their first session? The authors recommend temporary stent placement even for patients
without concomitant cholangitis?
2. Medical costs must be higher for patients in group B, because they required admission twice.
Please add comments about this topic for the limitation.
3. The serum bilirubin level might be different between the groups. Please show the data, and if
there is between-group difference, please enter bilirubin level to calculate propensity score.
4. The patients in group B underwent ERCP at least twice. Did the patients in group A undergo
only a single session of ERCP? Why did the patients without complete stone removal undergo
second session of ERCP to achieve complete stone removal?
5. The rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis was 14% in group A although 70% of patients underwent
EST. This rate of PEP is much higher compared with previous studies which demonstrated the
safety of EST. Please explain the reason.
6. The rate of biliary stent placement should be added in the Table 2.
7. For patients in group B, the risk of biliary infection due to stent dysfunction before the second
session of ERCP could not be ignored. To access the safety of elective stone removal, the rate
of biliary events should be included in the post-procedural adverse events.
8. The authors described all patients received 100 mg of indomethacin to prevent PEP. I could
not believe because this study cohort included elderlies who had concomitant serious chronic
diseases. I assume that not a few percentages of patients had renal dysfunction who could not
receive NSAIDs.
9. The authors described that the risk mistakenly entering the pancreatic duct significantly
decreases in group B. However, the rate of accidental guidewire insertion to pancreatic duct or
pancreatic duct opacification were not shown in the results.
10. Were there any patients who underwent only biliary stent placement without subsequent
biliary stone removal (e.g., completely disabled patients) in this study cohort?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02984-0 (2023)

Title: RFC2 promotes aerobic glycolysis and progression of colorectal cancer
Version: 1 Date: 18 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thanks to the editorial department for the opportunity to review the manuscript, I have some
simple comments on the article:
First of all, there are some grammatical errors in the article, the author should correct them in
time;
Second, the description of the magnification ratio in Figure 1C is wrong.
Third, I think the position of statistical labels in Figure 2B should be uniformly adjusted.
Fourth, the transfection efficiency of plasmids is generally considered to be successful only
when it is above 70%, regardless of knockdown or overexpression. There is no obvious effect
in Figure 3A WB, but the effect in Figure 4D is very obvious.
Fifth, the meaning of P value should be marked in the Figure legend.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02984-0 (2023)

Title: RFC2 promotes aerobic glycolysis and progression of colorectal cancer
Version: 1 Date: 11 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
RFC2 was upregulated in CRCs and associated with poor prognosis.
Knockdown of RFC2 inhibited CRC cell proliferation, induced apoptosis, and suppressed
migration and invasion; knockdown of CREB5 suppressed RFC2 expression. Furthermore,
RFC2 promoted aerobic glycolysis and the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway.
Major questions
1. The underline mechanism of RFC2 in CRC is not fully investigated. What are some of the
things reported in relation to RFC1-5 (except 2) and CRC? (P4, line 57)
2. Higher expression of RFC2 predicted poor prognosis of CRC. I would like to know about the
relationship between RFC2 and prognosis at your institution. (P7, line 152)
3. Why did you use SW480, HCT116 when evaluating proliferation, etc.? I think you need to
describe the expression of RFC2 with other cells.
4. I would like to know more about the relationship between CREB5 in the MET pathway and
which part of RFC2 affects it.
Minor questions
1. I think it would be better to make it clearer which is the tumor in Fig. 1-A.
2. I think it should be noted that a significant difference was found in Fig1-B.
3. What are the numbers 1-8 in Fig. 1-D?
4. I think #, &, etc. in Fig3 need to be explained.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02984-0 (2023)

Title: RFC2 promotes aerobic glycolysis and progression of colorectal cancer
Version: 3 Date: 13 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
Eight pairs of cancer and matched normal tissues were collected from patients at The Second
Hospital of Shandong University from January 2021 to December 2021. We cannot give the
relationship between RFC2 expression and survival.
#I think it is better to consider older cases to see the prognosis.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02987-x (2023)

Title: The effectiveness of walking exercise on the bowel preparation before colonoscopy: A
single blind randomized clinical trial study
Version: 2 Date: 07 May 2023
Reviewer:  Ilhami Yuksel
Reviewer's report:
In this randomized control trial, the authors aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of walking
exercises on bowel preparation before colonoscopy procedure.
Presented study showed that the higher number of footsteps (more than 6900 steps) taken
was found to enhance bowel preparation, while walking exercise, as an intervention could not
significantly enhance bowel preparation. Also, older people and smokers seem to have fewer
benefits from walking exercises for bowel preparation before the colonoscopy procedure.
Beneficial effect of higher number of footsteps on bowel preparation is valuable information,
which should be highlighted and debated in the discussion and conclusion. Following that,
the authors' statement that "walking exercise as an intervention before colonoscopy was not
significantly associated with BBPS" may be mentioned.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02987-x (2023)

Title: The effectiveness of walking exercise on the bowel preparation before colonoscopy: A
single blind randomized clinical trial study
Version: 2 Date: 23 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
This study has a rigorous design, which is of certain significance to the guidance of clinical
intestinal preparation, except that the study was carried out five years ago, which is a little long.
My opinion is to accept
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02987-x (2023)

Title: The effectiveness of walking exercise on the bowel preparation before colonoscopy: A
single blind randomized clinical trial study
Version: 2 Date: 14 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I read with interest the manuscript by Rezamand, et al. The authors
performed a randomized clinical study evaluating the effectiveness of walking exercise on bowel
preparation before colonoscopy.
1. Did the authors consider only screening colonoscopy for this study or were diagnostic
indications for colonoscopy also considered? This should be specified in methods.
2. Please specify the company make and model for smart bands involved in this study.
3. How did the authors come up with the number of steps i.e. 6900? Was this based on a previous
study?
4. Further details are needed regarding the details of colonoscopy performed, i.e. type of scopes,
use of distal attachments, use of virtual/chromoendoscopy, water/air insufflation, etc.
5. Was there any association between timing of day and colonoscopy performed?
6. Did the authors look at outcomes such as ADR and serrated polyp detection rate? This would
be interesting for the readers as the ultimate goal of colonoscopy is to reduce cancer.
7. Table 1: Please correct the spelling for “cecum”.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Please see the comments above
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02987-x (2023)

Title: The effectiveness of walking exercise on the bowel preparation before colonoscopy: A
single blind randomized clinical trial study
Version: 4 Date: 03 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have made substantial changes to their manuscript. The
revised version is acceptable for publication.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Manuscript can be accepted
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02970-6 (2023)

Title: Spanish version of the ICIQ-Bowel questionnaire among colorectal cancer patients:
Construct and criterion validity
Version: 1 Date: 15 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This paper presents novel data about the Spanish version of the
International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Anal Incontinence Symptoms and
Quality of Life Module (ICIQ-B) among patients with colorectal cancer. The paper is generally
well-written. The authors use reasonable, accepted approaches to evaluating the measure’s
psychometric properties, with the exception of the use of exploratory factor analysis (noted
in detail below). The authors should specifically state their hypotheses for evaluating known
groups validity.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors say the questionnaires were collected on paper by physical therapists. Does this
mean that the questionnaire administration was interviewer-assisted? If so, this should be stated
explicitly.
For known groups validity (construct validity), I expected to see hypotheses stating expected
relationships. The authors say “hypothesis testing” and the discussion uses “as expected”
language, but I did not see the hypotheses clearly stated in the methods section.
Since this is a scale with previous psychometric evaluations, why was exploratory factor analysis
used to assess dimensionality? I expected the authors would test whether the existing factor
(subscale) structure held in their population using confirmatory factor analysis. I found this
problematic, especially as the authors effectively ignore their results in favor of the original 3
factor structure.
The methods section species a threshold of 0.7 for alpha, while the results all exceed that, they
are listed as fair when below 0.9 (though in the discussion they call these same values “good”).
I agree that 0.9 is a more stringent threshold (suitable for individual comparisons while 0.7
is suitable for group comparisons), but the authors should be consistent between the different
sections of the paper.
A final conclusion paragraph is needed rather than ending with the limitations paragraph.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02970-6 (2023)

Title: Spanish version of the ICIQ-Bowel questionnaire among colorectal cancer patients:
Construct and criterion validity
Version: 4 Date: 06 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
In my opinion the authors anwered alls suggestions made by the reviewers. With one exception
that still I miss a conclusions parragraf as it is in the abstract, a little bit extended.
There are some minor typo errors that need to be reviewed
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02970-6 (2023)

Title: Spanish version of the ICIQ-Bowel questionnaire among colorectal cancer patients:
Construct and criterion validity
Version: 4 Date: 13 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have responded adequately to reviewer comments. They
have also made changes to their manuscript to reflect these responses. This paper presents novel
data about the Spanish version of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire
Anal Incontinence Symptoms and Quality of Life Module (ICIQ-B) among patients with
colorectal cancer. Their methods and conclusions are appropriate.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02950-w (2023)

Title: Safe discharge for patients admitted for lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGITB):
derivation and validation of a novel scoring system
Version: 1 Date: 23 May 2023
Reviewer:  Ieva Stundiene
Reviewer's report:
The autors derived and validated a novel scoring system to predict for safe discharge after
presentation with LGITB.
The system is useful and the article is well written.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02950-w (2023)

Title: Safe discharge for patients admitted for lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGITB):
derivation and validation of a novel scoring system
Version: 1 Date: 29 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Daear Authors, I must congratulate with you for this excellent  study.  The investigation has been
conducted properly, statistic is adequate, conclusions in line with your results.  The investigation
deserves to be repeated in a prospective  cohort from different institution and I suggest to make
a comment in the discussion on this.
Congratulation for this excellent work.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02950-w (2023)

Title: Safe discharge for patients admitted for lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGITB):
derivation and validation of a novel scoring system
Version: 1 Date: 24 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
I have read with interest the paper by Yue Zhao et al.
Aim of the study is to identify a new clinical score to guide "safe discharge" in patients with
lower gastrointestinal bleeding.
Authors drew a new score in the derivation phase of the study (retrospective analysis of patients
admitted in three years in a surgical unit of a single center) and then validated the score in a
population of patients prospectively enrolled. Also patients from the second part of the study
were patients admitted in the same surgical unit.
Authors found that the new score outperformed the Glasgow Blatchford score and performed
similarly to the Oakland score, and found that a larger proportion of patients were categorized
as low risk with the new score compared to the Oakland score.
Even if the aim of the study is of great interest, I am afraid that the study design is not adequate
to design a new clinical score for safe discharge in patients with LGIB.
All the patients included into the study were already admitted to a surgical department from an
Emergency department (ED).
This has two implications:
First of all, some patients presenting to the ED for LGIB could have died before admission to
the surgical guard, either in the ED itself or in the Intensive care unit. Considering that a similar
score should be used to avoid any possible death, excluding these patients from the analysis
would introduce a strong bias
Secondly, we cannot evaluate the usefulness of this score in guiding safe discharge from the ED,
without admitting the patient (that is the main aim of clinical scores for patients with bleeding).
This also means that you can't really compare this new score to the Oakland score
I don't think that a similar score could also be somehow useful in clinical practice to discharge
patients once they have been admitted into the hospital. Once a patient is admitted, in fact, we
cannot rely on parameters at admission (such as Hb or systemic pressure) to decide for discharge
but we need to evaluate the present status of the patient.
Morevoer, once a patient is admitted for lower gastrointestinal bleeding, endoscopy should be
performed during the index admission, even if not urgently. In this case only 60% of patients
underwent colonoscopy.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02950-w (2023)

Title: Safe discharge for patients admitted for lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGITB):
derivation and validation of a novel scoring system
Version: 1 Date: 27 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a retrospective cohort study with the aim to derive and validate a novel clinical scoring
system to predict safe discharge after LGITB admission. The study design and the statistical
analysis seem to be appropriate, however, I have some suggestions reported below.
• In the method section:
1. The definition of re-bleeding could be improved with references.
2. The Table 1 could be reported in the main text and not like a table, usually Table 1 is referring
to patients’ clinical features.
• The acronyms, especially for those in tables, could be explained at the end of each table.
• It could be useful to keep only the presence of a specific variable for a better reading of Table
2 and Table 3.
• The value of OR reported in Table 4 must be revised, the positive value is referred to a risk
factor not to a protective one.
• The authors demonstrated that the accuracy of the novel scoring system in the prediction of
safe discharge is similar to the accuracy of the Oakland Score. I think that this result may depend
on the poor difference between the two scores, and it could be interesting to focus the future
research on the clinical status of patients.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02964-4 (2023)

Title: Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease and socioeconomic determinants in an Iranian cohort
study
Version: 1 Date: 06 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor,
Thank you for choosing me as a reviewer. This manuscript examines the prevalence of non-
alcoholic fatty liver disease and its socio-economic determinants in an Iranian population. It is an
interesting study with a large sample size. However, there are some corrections to the manuscript
that need to be made. My suggestions are as follows
1. The manuscript needs English language editing
2. Keywords: Choose keywords based on the MeSH. Use full names instead of abbreviations.
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease instead of NAFLD. The name of the place (Hoveyzeh) should
be removed from the keywords.
3. Methods: There is no place for this sentence in the method and it should be in the introduction
"However, the reported association between SES and NAFLD is currently controversial.
Therefore, this study investigated the association between a more comprehensive SES composite
including educational level and qualification, wealth index, Townsend deprivation index, and
NAFLD."
Results:
4.  At the beginning of the analysis, you have to decide how many groups each variable will be,
for example, age. In table 1, as in table 3, divide age into two groups. It is not interesting to have
7 groups in a table and 2 groups in a table.
5. What is meant by cholesterol in table 1? Cholesterol disorder? If yes, it is not defined in the
method. Why didn't you report dyslipidemia? or the average of 4 lipid profile items
6. What is the definition of diabetes? It is not defined in the method.
7. In the method, it should be fully explained what do you mean by negative and positive
NAFLD? And what is the range of the FLI index?
8. I have a question; why did you exclude people with an index of 30 to 59?! You could also
report the status of this normal group in Tables 1 and 2 and see its difference with the other two
groups and finally consider the outcome variable in quantitative regression.
9. In addition, you said in the method that people with an index of 30 to 59 were excluded, and
in the findings you reported 30 to 60?! Which is correct?
10. When you define abbreviations at the beginning of the introduction, you should use that
abbreviation instead of the full name until the end of the manuscript. You used the full name
of NAFLD many times.
11. I suggest to merge table 3 and 4 so that the difference between crude and adjusted model
clearly defined for the readers.
12. I suggest you divide the age into two groups. The reason is that in Tables 3 and 4, there
was an inverse relationship between those over 60 years old. This may be due to the smaller
population of the over 60 age group compared to the other two groups
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02964-4 (2023)

Title: Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease and socioeconomic determinants in an Iranian cohort
study
Version: 1 Date: 15 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
Was the index validated locally?
A literature review should be mentioned in the introduction.
The measurement of anthropometric , food intake and biochemical should be mentioned in the
method.
The kind of statistical test, confounding factors, and abbreviations should be mentioned in below
of table.
CI and confidence interval should not be mentioned in the discussion.
The important point is the method of diagnosing fatty liver. It should be noted that the studies
have been mentioned in the discussion, what is the diagnostic method?
Please add to the limitations that confounding factors such as genetic factors were not adjusted.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02964-4 (2023)

Title: Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease and socioeconomic determinants in an Iranian cohort
study
Version: 3 Date: 20 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
1.Biomedical measurements require references
2. Is FFQ validated? Please mention the references.
3. "Thank you for your comment; considering that this index was used in many studies, we did
not validate it."
Please mention some studies that this index was used.
4.Please compare the detection NAFLD in previous studies with your method in the discussion.