JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-119 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Assessment of Preoperative Exercise Capacity in Hepatocellular
Carcinoma Patients with Chronic Liver Injury Undergoing Hepatectomy
Version: 1Date:11 October 2012
Reviewer: Michihiro Hayashi
Reviewer's report:
The study concept of this paper appears novel and unique in terms of strategic
approach to improve hepatocellular cacinoma patients' short and long outcomes
after hepatectomy.
Minor Essential Revisions:
spelling mistake in the Reference section: no.18.
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-13-119 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Assessment of Preoperative Exercise Capacity in Hepatocellular
Carcinoma Patients with Chronic Liver Injury Undergoing Hepatectomy
Version: 1Date:28 January 2013
Reviewer: Ajith Siriwardena
Reviewer's report:
This study is a single centre cohort report of the use of pre-operative
cardiopulmonary exercise testing to predict outcome in a series of patients
undergoing liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) complicating
chronic liver disease.
Introduction
This is well-written and clear. The sentence “In elderly patients undergoing major
abdominal surgical procedures, almost all postoperative cardiopulmonary deaths
occur in patients with an anaerobic threshold (AT) of <11 ml/min/kg” is slightly
mis-leading as cardiopulmonary deaths can occur as a result of operative
complications. Thus the sentence should be modified and simply state that the
majority of deaths from cardiopulmonary complications occur in patients with an
anaerobic threshold <11ml/min/kg.
Abstract
•There is no strong evidence that exercise therapy can modify CPET parameters
and the reference to this in the text should be removed “ Improvement of
preoperativeexercise capacity in patients with chronic liver injury may improve
postoperativePrognosis”.
Methods
•In table 1 the term NBC should be explained. There are a series of unexplained
abbreviations and there should be a table 1 legend.
•It is not clear whether the population is the 66 patients who underwent resection
or the 56 from the authors’ institution. Reading the paper, the population is really
61 patients– please clarify.
•56 patients were Child-Pugh A and 5 were B. What about the other 5 patients?
•Please provide information on the tests used to diagnose these tumours:
number undergoing MR scan and findings and also AFP levels.
•The phrase “all patients were doing well at time of discharge” is not clear and
should be more professionally expressed as “no in-patient mortality” – if that is
what the authors are trying to say.
•The section on liver resection terminology is baffling. Simply use the Brisbane
terminology; get rid of extended hepatectomy – and refer to this as right
trisectionectomy with similar for left and for smaller resections, the correct term is
non-anatomical, sub-segmental resection.
•One senior pathologist should read “one attending or consultant pathologist” –
his age and seniority are immaterial.
•If post-operative complications were not recorded prospectively, this should be
reported. If a system such as that of Dindo-Clavien was not used for assessment
of complications, this should be mentioned.
Results
•Table 3 is un-necessary and detracts from table 2 – please remove but refer to it
in the text.
•Table 5 should also be deleted and simply referred to in the text.
•The implication that exercise therapy can improve CPET is not substantiated
and should be removed.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-119 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Assessment of Preoperative Exercise Capacity in Hepatocellular
Carcinoma Patients with Chronic Liver Injury Undergoing Hepatectomy
Version: 2Date:9 April 2013
Reviewer: Ajith Siriwardena
Reviewer's report:
The authors' have conscientiously attended to the corrections suggested.
One point which arises from their changes is how they were able to categorise
their data according to the Clavien-Dindo classification of post-operative
complications. Normally, these are allocated in real time i.e. for each patient
during the post-operative period. If they were collated in real time, invariably
authors report them at that time. As this classification was not provided with the
original report but added later this should be stated in the text but it is also
important to know how the authors arrived at the data (to ensure that there was
no falsification of data).
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-13-118 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Bowel necrosis following endovascular revascularization for chronic
mesenteric ischemia: report of a case and review of literatures
Version: 2Date:21 April 2013
Reviewer: Samuel Andreas Käser
Reviewer's report:
Takuro Shirasu et al. present a case of distal embolization with consecutive
bowel necrosis after endovascular revascularization for chronic mesenteric
ischemia. The report is of educational value as it emphasizes this complication in
a good way.
I. Major comments (which the author must respond to before a decision on
publication can be reached)
1. There are several grammatical errors in the manuscript. I propose to find a
native English speaker to improve the manuscript.
2. The authors contributions section is awkward. No research had to be designed
and no data had to be analyzed for this case report. Perhaps only TS, AH and
TM should be mentioned as authors, as obviously only they made essential
contributions to this case report?
II. Minor comments / suggestions (such as missing labels on figures, or the
wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
1. Abstract Background
The statement in the second sentence is neither wrong nor right. Several
possible complications of endovascular revascularization for chronic mesenteric
ischemia have been emphasized in the literature that is cited. I propose to write
explicitly that intestinal necrosis due to distal embolization has not been
emphasized yet.
III. Discretionary Revisions (which are recommendations for improvement but
which the author can choose to ignore)
1. Title
I propose to write: „review of literature“ instead of „review of literatures“.
2. Abstract Case presentation
The last sentence can be omitted, as the information is redundant and it indeed
is a conclusion. Additionally the conjugation of the verb “to be” is wrong.
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 have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-118 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Bowel necrosis following endovascular revascularization for chronic
mesenteric ischemia: report of a case and review of literatures
Version: 2Date:25 April 2013
Reviewer: Slobodan Tanaskovic
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
This manuscript describes serious complications following SMA angioplasty for
intestinal ischemia. There are several major drawbacks of this case.
1) As mentioned in the manuscript, bowel ischemia after visceral arteries
angioplasty has been previously described and this case has no remarkable
exceptions.
2) This patient already had distal ileum and ascending colon ischemia prior to
intervention and this fact significantly contributed to unfavorable outcome.
3) In addition to bowel ischemia this patient had postoperative myocardial
infarction and liver abscess that were the main reasons for lethal outcome. The
authors responded immediately after angioplasty and bowel resection was
performed on the second day. If no myocardial infarction or liver abscess
occurred this patient might have survived.
4) The authors should should comment why they didn't use embolic protection
bearing in mind previously described embolic complications?
5) The authors should comment on stent use in SMA angioplasty? How does it
differ from angioplasty alone in the terms of distal embolization?
Minor Essential Revisions
English should be improved.
References are incorrectly written. In almost all of them ";" should be placed
instead od "," after the name of the Journal and the year of publication.
Figures should be improved.
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 have no financial or non-financial competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-118 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Bowel necrosis following endovascular revascularization for chronic
mesenteric ischemia: A case report and review of the literature
Version: 3Date:20 June 2013
Reviewer: Slobodan Tanaskovic
Reviewer's report:
The authors made substantial changes in the manuscript according to my
suggestions.
I think this case is now suitable for publication. I would like to congratulate the
authors for writing such interesting article.
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 copmeting interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-117 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:The protective effect of recombinant Lactococcus lactis oral vaccine on a
Clostridium difficile-infected animal model
Version: 5Date:6 March 2013
Reviewer: Martijn P Bauer
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has become much more readable after the modifications.
However, I have some more comments.
Minor revisions
In general
The terms ‘secreted plasmid’ and ‘membrane-anchored plasmid’ suggest that the
plasmid is secreted and membrane-anchored, whereas this happens to the
protein for which the plasmid codes. It would be clearer if the name were
changed to ‘secreted protein plasmid’ or the groups were numbered or
something like that.
Why was cwaM6 chosen as one of the genes in the vaccine with cell
wall-anchored proteins?
What could be the advantage of membrane-anchored proteins as vaccine over
secreted proteins? Have the authors tried to demonstrate secreted proteins in
stool?
In the Discussion, the authors only refer to one article on humoral immunity in
CDI in animals, whereas there is a lot of literature on the role of the antibody
response in humans. The manuscript would improve if this literature would also
be taken into account.
Abstract
‘Is an important pathway’ or, rather, ‘may be an effective strategy’.
Introduction
Can a reference be given for the statement that CDI incidence is increasing in
China?
Please spell out CLDM the first time it is used.
2.2
‘Modification’ instead of ‘medication’.
2.4
‘Manufacturer’ instead of ‘manufacture’.
How was cytopathic effect scored in the neutralisation assay?
3.1; last line
One ‘no’ should be removed.
3.2
I do not understand the scores for the membrane-anchored group. Neither do I
understand why only the scores for this group are given. The figures are clear
enough by themselves. Were any of these differences statistically significant?
4.2 & 4.3
The authors state in paragraph 4.2 that because their animal model had been
treated with clindamycin after vaccination, recombinant L. lactis could not have
acted as a probiotic. My interpretation is that they assume all L. lactis are killed
by the clindamycin treatment. Is the MIC for clindamycin of this strain of L. lactis
known? Furthermore, this assumption could be stated more explicitly. On the
other hand, in the next paragraph, the authors explain the milder clinical course
of the animals that were given L. lactis with an empty plasmid by its acting as a
probiotic. They seem to assume that some L. lactis survive clindamycin
treatment.
The figures still have the names of the hamster groups used in the previous
version. Please change.
Could statistically significant differences be indicated in all figures?
It is difficult to read fig. 9.
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-13-116 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Cholestasis induces reversible accumulation of periplakin in mouse liver
Version: 1Date:22 May 2013
Reviewer: Helmut Denk
Reviewer's report:
P6: According to recommended nomenclature the term cytokeratin (CK) should
be replaced by keratin.
P22, line 2 (ob/ob mice): this is a steatosis but not a true steatohepatitis model.
P22, lines 4-5: BDL should not be regarded as cholestatic hepatitis model but as
model of mechanical cholestasis.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-116 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Cholestasis induces reversible accumulation of periplakin in mouse liver
Version: 1Date:3 June 2013
Reviewer: Stefano Fiorucci
Reviewer's report:
The study S. Ito et al., suggests that liver accumulation of periplakin occurs in
response to cholestasis and links this finding to the activation of FXR.
Comments
The study contains a number of data and observations appear to be corroborates
by investigating PPl expression in normal and diseased livers. Three models of
cholestasis have been investigated.
I think the data are well presented. I have the following comments: 1. why
GW4064 fails to increase Ppl in the liver; and 2. There is any evidence that the
PpL genes has a putative FXRE in its promoter region?.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no conflict of interest
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-114 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Synchronous Appendiceal and Intramucosal Gastric Signet Ring Cell
Carcinomas in an Individual with CDH1-associated Hereditary Diffuse Gastric
Carcinoma: a Case Report of a Novel Association and Review of the Literature
Version: 1Date:16 March 2013
Reviewer: Teri Longacre
Reviewer's report:
This is a very well written and documented case report with interesting findings. I
recommend acceptance.
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-13-114 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Synchronous Appendiceal and Intramucosal Gastric Signet Ring Cell
Carcinomas in an Individual with CDH1-associated Hereditary Diffuse Gastric
Carcinoma: a Case Report of a Novel Association and Review of the Literature
Version: 1Date:18 May 2013
Reviewer: Adedayo A Onitilo
Reviewer's report:
This is a well written paper and highlight novel presentation of a synchronous
appendiceal and intramucosal gastric signet ring cell carcinomas in an Individual
with CDH1-associated Hereditary Diffuse Gastric Carcinoma.
I have no major concern with the paper.
Minor suggestion:
1) Consider shortening the background and case report section.
2) Consider adding a pedigree diagram (family tree) showing affected and
unaffected individuals
3) Consider adding to the case presentation section what prompted the thought
for genetic screening 6 years after breast cancer diagnosis.
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-13-114 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Synchronous Appendiceal and Intramucosal Gastric Signet Ring Cell
Carcinomas in an Individual with CDH1-associated Hereditary Diffuse Gastric
Carcinoma: a Case Report of a Novel Association and Review of the Literature
Version: 1Date:7 June 2013
Reviewer: Theodore Liakakos
Reviewer's report:
The authors are presenting the first case in the literature of an appendiceal signet
ring cell carcinoma with synchronous CDH1-associated hereditary diffuse gastric
cancer in a female patient. They also make a comprehensive analysis of the
current
literature about familial gastric cancer and associated malignancies.
Though I would have thought that they should had focused more on coexisting
other malignancies I think that their report adds to the literature and should be
published.
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-13-115 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Fingertip rapid point-of-care test in adult case-finding in coeliac disease
Version: 2Date:15 April 2013
Reviewer: fabiana zingone
Reviewer's report:
1. The authors should provide further details on the previous studies which had
tested the same diagnostic procedure in the introduction. They should also
compare their results to the ones reported in the discussion.
2. What is the time of the recruitment?
3. The study population should be better defined:
- The authors report in the title and several times in the text that they considered
adult subjects; however, the range of age reported is 1.2-77 years.
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria are not reported.
- The study population baseline data (i.e BMI, sex, comorbidities and
autoimmune diseases) are not reported.
4. Could the authors report the sensitivity and specificity of the test?
5. The authors checked small bowel antibody deposits but they do not report any
interpretation of the findings. Is this test useful for this particular study?
Minor comments: in the first paragraphs of the result please change
(case 5 in Table 1) with (case 4 in Table 1)
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-115 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Fingertip rapid point-of-care test in adult case-finding in coeliac disease
Version: 2Date:24 April 2013
Reviewer: Parveen June Kumar
Reviewer's report:
An interesting article showing that the rapid 'point of care test' is a useful test for
finding cases in patients,. The authors have tested this in first degree relatives of
patients with Coeliac disease .
1. The numbers are too small for any statistical analysis. Larger population
studies will be needed for confirmation.
2. Direct translation from other languages into English does not always result in
the correct meaning. I have tried to suggest different sentences to help
clarification.
ABSTRACT
3. Background: Suggest changing to : Coeliac disease(CD), due to its protean
clinical manifestation, is still very under diagnosed in adults, and delays in
diagnosis may take years or even decades. Simple tools to find cases in primary
care may help to identify patients for further diagnostic tests. We have evaluated
the usefulness.........
4. Methods: .....delete 'altogether'
5. 2nd para English here ... Change to: In addition...the .POCT(which measures
blood erythrocytes...complexes ) on site, blood was drawn ( you cant draw serum
from the blood!)
6. 4th sentence: Change sentence to read to 'All serological parameters were
analysed blind in a centralised laboratory...
7. Results:2nd sentence Change to : A positive EMA test was found only in one
other subject.
8. BACKGROUND Rather long
6th sentence.An odd statement ...'coeliac disease is no longer confined to the
childhood population....' This implies that we have only recently discovered it in
adults!! Change or delete.
9. 2nd para 2nd sentence - please clarify. Do you mean 'multifaceted' or
'multifactorial'...I don't think either is helpful here.Again 'protean manifestation
might be better.
METHODS.
10 Patients. Delete 'Altogether'
11 Endoscopies and biopsies. I suggest that you remove the last 2 sentences
about looking for mucosal TG2 deposits as it is not mentioned in the abstract and
you are getting down to very few numbers (5). Please also remove from the table
and anywhere else mentioned ( results - 2nd para, and discussion)
Results - OK
Discussion
12. Good but extremely long. This should be shortened and points made much
clearer. I think your readers might resent the sentence which says 'It must be
remembered that in biology we never reach 100%'!
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-13-115 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Fingertip rapid point-of-care test in adult case-finding in coeliac disease
Version: 3Date:14 June 2013
Reviewer: fabiana zingone
Reviewer's report:
no 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-13-115 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Fingertip rapid point-of-care test in adult case-finding in coeliac disease
Version: 3Date:23 June 2013
Reviewer: Parveen June Kumar
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for you changes There is now much more clarity.
It still could be shortened but probably reasonable as it is.
Results - suggested delete the word 'Altogether in first and third sentences.,,not
necessary.
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-13-113 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Duodenal microbiota composition and mucosal homeostasis in pediatric
celiac disease
Version: 1Date:20 May 2013
Reviewer: Anna Sapone
Reviewer's report:
Minory essential revisions
The discussion and conclusions are not well balanced for this reson I would
suggest to review the lenght of the discussion and focus on the main outcomes
of the paper.
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'm consultant to Doctor Shar Institute
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-111 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Intraepithelial lymphocyte distribution differs between the bulb and the
second part of duodenum
Version: 1Date:16 April 2013
Reviewer: Fei Bao
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions:
1) Page 5, line 7: In each specimen areas of mostly expressed
histopathological changes ie low villus/crypt ratio, increased numbers of
lymphocytes were recognized. the word "ie" could be changed to "including".
2) Page 5, line 8: "CD3 sections" could be changed to "CD3 immunostained
sections".
3) Page 5, line 11: "was calculated" could be changed to "were calculated".
4) Page 6, line 6: The study results are depicted by mean and 95% confidence
interval (CI)" could be changed to "The study results were depicted by mean and
95% confidence interval (CI)".
5) Page 7, line 7: A reference is needed for the sentence "Intraepithelial
lymphocytosis (i.e. >25 IELs/100 enterocytes, corresponding to Marsh grade I)".
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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-111 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Intraepithelial lymphocyte distribution differs between the bulb and the
second part of duodenum
Version: 1Date:12 May 2013
Reviewer: Kartar Singh
Reviewer's report:
Accept
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-13-112 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Impaired Mitochondrial beta-Oxidation in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C:
Relation with Viral Load and Insulin Resistance
Version: 1Date:2 December 2012
Reviewer: Amedeo Lonardo
Reviewer's report:
SPECIFIC COMMENT
MAJOR
1. Improve the explanation of the rationale underlying this study: reference to
adult Adult-onset type 2 citrullinemia is quite difficult to understand.
2. Define criteria for inclusion of healthy contrls.
3. Expand the series of individuals with chronic hepatitis C to at least 100 cases
4. Include a second control group of age and gender-matched patients with
chronic hepatitis B/NASH
5. Use multivariate analysis to assess independent predictors of impaired
mitochondrial beta-oxidation: is it HCV or is it liver histology (irrespective of
etiology).
6. Discuss the limitations of the study: is there any possibility for spurious
findings ?
MINOR
1. Editing by a native English speaker is recommended
2. Seven figures are uncommon.
Level of interest: An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a
scientific/medical journal
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-112 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Impaired Mitochondrial beta-Oxidation in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C:
Relation with Viral Load and Insulin Resistance
Version: 1Date:8 April 2013
Reviewer: Hironori Mitsuyoshi
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, Sato et al. examined hepatic fatty acid oxidation in patients
with HCV infection. They showed that hepatic oxidation was significantly
decreased in HCV patients compared to healthy controls and that the decreased
rate was associated with serum core antigen levels and the index of insulin
resistance. The mechanisms by which HCV infection promotes hepatic steatosis
would involve multiple steps. The findings are interesting. However, I have
several questions regarding their results and discussion.
- Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The authors showed that hepatic fatty acid oxidation was decreased in HCV
patients. However, the decrease in oxidation was not significantly associated with
the grade of steatosis. What is the clinical implication of the impairment of fatty
acid oxidation?
2. The authors speculated that the decrease in fatty acid oxidation was
associated with insulin resistance (Discussion, 7th paragraph). This suggestion
is seemingly curious, since insulin resistance generally results in the increase in
serum fatty acid levels. The increased serum fatty acids may accelerate hepatic
fatty acid oxidation as the authors showed in Figure 4B. The relationships
between them should be discussed in more detail.
3. The authors discussed that “ triglyceride accumulation in the hepatocytes due
to the impairment of mitochondrial beta-oxidation leads to insulin resistance
(Discussion, 7th paragraph).” However, it has been described that lipid
accumulation in the liver does not necessarily cause the insulin resistance
(Schonfeld et al. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc 2008; 119: 217–24). It should be
discussed.
4. The authors described that the increase in the core protein levels leads to the
decrease in the rate of hepatic oxidation (Discussion, 5th paragraph). Because
HCV replication prefers lipid rich circumstances, it can be assumed that the
increase in the core protein levels are the results, not cause, of decreased fatty
acid oxidation. They should be discussed.
5. The authors evaluated hepatic fatty acid oxidation by the rate of change in
ketone body concentration between 12h and 15h after the start of fasting
(Methods, fasting test). Why did they measure ketone body levels at 2 times? Is
this method more accurate than one point measurement? If so, it should be
described.
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-13-112 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Impaired Mitochondrial beta-Oxidation in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C:
Relation with Viral Load and Insulin Resistance
Version: 2Date:19 June 2013
Reviewer: Hironori Mitsuyoshi
Reviewer's report:
I think that the revised manuscript was properly written. The authors fully
responded to my question in a polite way. I have no additional comments about
the manuscript.
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-13-109 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Antibiotic exposure and the development of coeliac disease: A nationwide
case-control study
Version: 1Date:19 February 2013
Reviewer: Federico Biagi
Reviewer's report:
In this paper Mårild et al studied a possible relationship between antibiotic
exposure and the development of coeliac disease. Although the results seem
negative to me, I think this is an interesting and well performed study. The
authors have correctly presented their results discussing pro & cons. I am
sincerely convinced that negative studies deserve the same consideration of
positive ones.
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-13-109 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Antibiotic exposure and the development of coeliac disease: A nationwide
case-control study
Version: 1Date:30 May 2013
Reviewer: Geoffrey Holmes
Reviewer's report:
The authors made the hypothesis that there is a positive association between the
consumption of antibiotics and coeliac disease and used impressive data bases
held in Sweden to test this. A positive association was found and this could
indicate that antibiotics by affecting the intestinal microflora play a part in the
causation of coeliac disease. Alternatively, antibiotics may be given for
symptoms of as yet undiagnosed coeliac disease and so play no part in the
pathogenesis.
The researchers designed this investigation to try and overcome this last
scenario by studying not only those with coeliac disease but those with intestinal
inflammation and potential coeliac disease and the relationship held in all these
groups. It was stronger with repeated use of antibiotics and for all antibiotics
studied other than penicillin V. However, that antibiotics play a causal role in
coeliac disease can never be fully proved. The authors recognise this and fully
discuss the limitations and strengths of their study.
Comments
Minor Essential Revisions
The sections of this paper are out of order. The Methods section comes after the
Discussion and Comments and the references follow this pattern. This must be
an error of presentation and requires correction.
Abstract. Satisfactory and states quite clearly that a non-causal explanation for
the positive association cannot be excluded,
Background, Methods and Results. Well presented.
Discussion. Deals well with the issues raised in the study.
Reference list. Relevent.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-110 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Fatty liver index correlates with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, but not
with newly diagnosed coronary artery atherosclerotic disease in Chinese patients
Version: 1Date:18 February 2013
Reviewer: Gianluca Perseghin
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript by Zhao-Yan Jiang et al is focused on a set of patients recruited
in a consecutive fashion to perform coronary angiograms in the suspect of CAD.
These individuals also underwent abdominal US of the liver to assess the bight
aspect of liver steatosis and fatty liver index (FLI was calculated based on BMI,
waist, serum triglycerides and ggt levels in a Chinese population of 713
individuals (among them 574 had abdominal US).
The authors report a good association between FLI and US-determined NAFLD,
meanwhile a lack of association between NAFLD and FLI with CAD.
Specific comments
1) I am wondering whether drug therapy was collected in this population. Since
NAFLD is associated with a higher rate of overweight, diabetes, hypertension
and dyslipidemia I am wondering whether these individuals with NAFLD were
“overtreated” with respect to those without NAFLD. This is important to know for
the potential readers of the manuscript. Drug therapy may have an impact on
NAFLD, but also on progression of atherosclerosis.
2) The authors with this respect should put emphasis on the cross-sectional
nature of the study and should discuss the consequent limitations
3) To this end I believe that it is very important to check for the potential readers
the anthopometric, biochemical and therapeutic features of the study subjects
based on the three categories of FLI.
4) Table 4; why don’t you report also data about ALT ?
5) Are data about HbA1c available in this population ?
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 no Competing Interest of any reason
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-110 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Fatty liver index correlates with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, but not
with newly diagnosed coronary artery atherosclerotic disease in Chinese patients
Version: 2Date:20 April 2013
Reviewer: Emanuel Manesis
Reviewer's report:
The authors have adequately complied 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:
My answer to all above questions is NO
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-110 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Fatty liver index correlates with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, but not
with newly diagnosed coronary artery atherosclerotic disease in Chinese patients
Version: 2Date:21 April 2013
Reviewer: Gianluca Perseghin
Reviewer's report:
I found little improvement in the revised version of the manuscript.
No efforts were performed by the authors to address the most critical issues
raised in the previous revision.
Major Compulsory Revisions
Point 1) I am sorry but I do believe you have to deal with this problem. As you
can easily realize based on your work it would result that diabetes is approaching
to be a protective factor for CAD based on your multivariate logistic regression
analyses of factors associated with CAD (OR in Table 4 is 0.4 in men (0.2-0.9)
and 0.6 (0.2-1.6) in women). This is obviously a bias related to the cross
sectional nature of the study. My feeling is that drug therapy is behind this
anomalous finding. You need to find a way to take into account for drug therapy.
You realize that the set of data shown as it is in the manuscript in your last
version does not represent a good service for the potential readers of the
manuscript.
Point 2) With this respect you have to put more efforts in listing the potential
factors; your duty is to drive the reader through your manuscript explaining what
might be missing with the cross sectional approach (duration of the disease, sex,
drug therapy, duration of drug assumption and so on) not simply to emphasize
that the cross sectional approach might be hiding something; you have to state
what ?
Point 3) OK
Point 4) OK
Point 5) This is a shame
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: 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-13-110 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Fatty liver index correlates with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, but not
with newly diagnosed coronary artery atherosclerotic disease in Chinese patients
Version: 3Date:16 June 2013
Reviewer: Gianluca Perseghin
Reviewer's report:
The authors put more efforts to demonstrate that they took into account the
potential role of the concomitant therapy, natural history of NAFLD and CAD and
discuss appropriately these limitatons within the text and moreover included
more statistical analysis controlling for drug therapy.
I also appreciated the level of details included in the tables for the supplemental
set of data.
I am still surprised of the not different prevalence of diabetes when the two
groups of pats where segregated by CAD and the non differenet prevalence of
dyslipidemia when segregated by score of FLI.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
No conflict of interest
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-108 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effectiveness of polaprezinc for low-dose aspirin-induced small-bowel
mucosal injuries as evaluated by capsule endoscopy: a pilot randomized
controlled study
Version: 4Date:28 January 2013
Reviewer: Hiroki Endo
Reviewer's report:
In this randomized controlled study on small number of patients, the authors
concluded that polaprezinc treatment protects against low-dose aspirin-induced
small bowel injury. The manuscript is interesting and well written, however, has
several limitations.
1: It is unclear how the authors define the “low-dose aspirin-induced small bowel
mucoral injuries”. The possibility that the CE findings were not direct results of
aspirin. Neither follow-up CE exams were done after aspirin withdrawl, nor do we
have matched controls with no aspirin. Certainly the findings of the study are
suggestive, but not definitive. We have not histological diagnosis of the lesions
(not all the ulcers of the small bowel are Crohn’s ulcer or aspirin ulcers).
2: How the sample size calculated?
2: The results were presented as the mean and standard deviation. The sample
size was small. It is therefore expected that the data would not be normally
distributed. Therefore, I think that mean and SD may not be appropriate method
to present such data.
3: The concealment of allocation is unclear.
4: Discussion: “In previous studies, no trend was seen in the anatomic
distribution of aspirin-induced small bowel injuries” – Ref. 17 have shown that
aspirin-associated small bowel ulcers tended to be located in the distal part of the
small bowel.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-108 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effectiveness of polaprezinc for low-dose aspirin-induced small-bowel
mucosal injuries as evaluated by capsule endoscopy: a pilot randomized
controlled study
Version: 4Date:28 January 2013
Reviewer: Motohiro Esaki
Reviewer's report:
The authors prospectively analyzed the therapeutic effect of polaprezinc for small
bowel injury seen in patients under the treatment of LDA, and identified its
possible favorable effect for the patients under CE. Considering the high
prevalence of LDA-induced small-bowel mucosal injuries, and the lack of
established strategies for the prevention, clinical studies, like this trial, should be
encouraged. However, the reviewer has several criticisms regarding this
manuscript as described below.
Major compulsory revisions
1. Totally speaking, the manuscript should be checked by a native English
speaker.
(Methods section)
1. P6, lines 2-7. Patients who were taking NSAIDs other than LDA should be
excluded.
2. P6, line 15. Small-bowel mucosal injuries seen in the subjects were not
definitely proven to be the injuries caused by LDA, because such mucosal
injuries can be identified in a minority of healthy subjects. The authors should
revise the description.
3. P6, line 15-P7, line 1. How were the subjects randomized into two groups?
4. P7, lines 2-4. Were the patients in the control group given placebo? If not,
why?
5. P9, line 16. Considering the small number of subjects, the difference in the
indications for LDA therapy should also be analyzed by Fisher’s exact test.
(Result section)
1. P11, lines 13-14. The reviewer could not identify the meaning of the sentence.
(Discussion section)
1. The authors should describe the strength and limitation of the present study
much more precisely.
Minor essential revisions
(Discussion section)
1. P13, lines 3-5. The adverb “characteristically” should be changed into
“specifically”. However, it seems to the reviewer that such a finding should not be
emphasized in this manuscript, because ulcers were found in only 3 out of 20
patients.
(Tables)
1. Table 2. The number of CE score category of moderate or severe change
seems wrong.
Discretionary revisions
1. The determination of CE score seems unnecessary when considering the way
of definition.
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-13-108 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effectiveness of polaprezinc for low-dose aspirin-induced small-bowel
mucosal injuries as evaluated by capsule endoscopy: a pilot randomized
controlled study
Version: 4Date:30 January 2013
Reviewer: Toshio Watanabe
Reviewer's report:
The authors examined effects of polaprezinc, a chelate compound consisting of
zinc and L-carnosine, on low-dose aspirin induced small bowel injuries. They
demonstrated significant decreases in the numbers of reddened lesions and
erosins/ulcers by 4-weeks treatment of polaprezinc. There are some new findings
in this manuscript, but this paper has many serious problems to be solved.
Major points
1. The main weakness of this study is that the study population is very small. As
such, it is hard to draw any clinical conclusions based on this very small sample
size.
2. While I understand that this is a pilot study, the efficacy of any intervention
would require a placebo control.
3. Most of small bowel lesions evaluated in this study were mild injuries and not
clinically significant. Therefore, they cannot conclude that polaprezinc is effective
for the treatment of low-dose aspirin-induced small bowel injuries.
Minor points
1. The data presented in figure 1 have already been described in the text and this
figure shows no information valuable to readers. So, figure 1 should be deleted.
2. The authors did not discuss the mechanisms by which polaprezinc stimulated
the healing of the injuries. They should discuss this point.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-108 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effectiveness of polaprezinc for low-dose aspirin-induced small-bowel
mucosal injuries as evaluated by capsule endoscopy: a pilot randomized
controlled study
Version: 6Date:6 May 2013
Reviewer: Hiroki Endo
Reviewer's report:
I have carefully reviewed the resubmitted manuscript and all the suggestions that
I made to authors in my previous review have been taken into account. In my
opinion the resubmitted manuscript is now acceptable for publication. In this
context I have no more comments.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-108 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effectiveness of polaprezinc for low-dose aspirin-induced small-bowel
mucosal injuries as evaluated by capsule endoscopy: a pilot randomized
controlled study
Version: 6Date:6 May 2013
Reviewer: Toshio Watanabe
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed the concerns I raised with the previous version of
the
manuscript.
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-13-108 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effectiveness of polaprezinc for low-dose aspirin-induced small-bowel
mucosal injuries as evaluated by capsule endoscopy: a pilot randomized
controlled study
Version: 6Date:11 May 2013
Reviewer: Motohiro Esaki
Reviewer's report:
The authors appropriately replied to my suggestion, and the reviewer believes
the manuscript has been improved. However, The reviewer has some minor
criticisms described below.
Minor essential revisions
The reviewer still finds some grammatical errors in the revised manuscript.
P4, line 11. “polaprezinc is commonly used in the treatment ~” should be
changed into “~commonly used for~.”
P6, line 9. “All patients screened for inclusion in the study provided written
informed conset~” should be “All patients screened for inclusion in the study were
provided~.”
P8 , line 4. “Another” should be changed into “any other.”
The authors should carefully check their revised manuscript again.
Numbers of erosions/ulcers of both polaprezinc and control groups described in
Table 1 are different from those in Figure 3. Which result is true?
The description of references No 8, 22, and 29 should be concordantly
described.
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.