JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-8 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Effects of a Cholesterol-Enriched Diet on Intestinal Smooth Muscle Contraction: Inhibition of Title: 
Muscarinic Receptors and their Disinhibition by the 5-HT4 Agonist - Tegaserod 
 3  19 January 2006 Version: Date: 
 David Q Wang Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
None. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
None. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
None. 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-7 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 CagA-positive Helicobacter pylori infection is not associated with decreased risk of Barrett's Title: 
esophagus in a population with high H. pylori infection rate 
 1  24 November 2005 Version: Date: 
 Carmelo Scarpignato Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is an elegant study suggesting that neither H. pylori infection nor H. pylori infection by cagA+ strains decrease the risk of Barrett's esophagus. If one takes into account the high prevalence of H. pylori infection in the population studied, one should pay even more value to the results presented. 
It is certainly a pity that histolgy data of gastric mucosa are not available, but I agree with authors 
that performing endoscopy in and taking biopsies from healthy volunteers would have been 
unethical. Perhaps, the investigators could measure gastrin, pepsinogen I and pepsinogen II and use 
the Gastropanel® software to get some insight into the gastric mucosal status, provided they still 
have blood samples of both patients and control subjects. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
The authors should discuss - in the context of GERD and Barrett's -the interrelationships between H. 
pylori infection and PPI use and effect. 
They could also provide gastrin and pepsinogen data, if sera of patients and volunteers are 
available. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-7 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 CagA-positive Helicobacter pylori infection is not associated with decreased risk of Barrett's Title: 
esophagus in a population with high H. pylori infection rate 
 2  4 January 2006 Version: Date: 
 Carmelo Scarpignato Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The paper is now acceptable for publication. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-6 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Diagnostic Value of Biochemical Markers (FibroTest-FibroSURE) for the prediction of Liver Title: 
Fibrosis in patients with Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease 
 1  11 January 2006 Version: Date: 
 Edison Roberto R Parise Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Since NAFLD affects almost 20% of the general population around the world and the diagnostic can only be made by liver biopsy, non-invasive markers could be extremely helpful, at least for selecting those with more chance of 
having a progressive liver disease for this procedure. According to that, 
the diagnostic performance of FibroTest presented in this manuscript seems 
to be a helpful non-invasive markers for fibrosis evaluation in NAFLD, superior to many already described scores, including BAAT criteria, 
hyaluronic acid, typeIV collagen, laminin and others. 
There is sufficient number of patients and controls for statistical analysis 
and the data are extensively analyzed, with relevant discussion about the 
size of the fragments in liver biopsy. The title and abstract are in 
accordance with the findings and the paper is very well written. 
The disappoint finding is the inability of Fibrotest in differentiating NASH 
from steatosis in NAFLD. 
Although the methodology is well described, in the opposite direction of 
others indexes, (like MELD for instance) the mathematical formula for 
Fibrotest calculation is not provided by the authors what makes difficult 
for the reviewer to agree that this manuscript provided sufficient details 
to replicate the work, as it is asked by the editorial board of BMC Gastroenterology. Anyhow, different authors in chronic hepatitis C have 
utilized Fibrotest with a good reproducibility. 
Therefore, we think that this manuscript can be accepted without revision 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-5 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Lifestyle as a predictor for colonic neoplasia in asymptomatic individuals Title: 
 3  25 July 2005 Version: Date: 
 Ole Kronborg Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Ac---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
The data in Fig 1 are already mentioned in the text. The data in tables 2-3are very exhorbitant and it 
might be easier for the reader to avoid illustrating some of the non-significant findings 
Discussion: The very limited age groups included may to some degree compromize the wider 
application of the results and this aspectmust be discussed. Furthermore the reasons for the definitions of advanced neoplasia should be given and the number of actual cancers stated. Finally 
it would be interesting to know how the authors valuate the importance of adherence to the lifestyle 
recommendations mentioned. The authors should be appraised for having used the opportunity to perform a nested case-control study. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-5 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Lifestyle as a predictor for colonic neoplasia in asymptomatic individuals Title: 
 6  18 November 2005 Version: Date: 
 A Chao Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I have reviewed the re-submitted manuscript by Larsen, et al, on 
Lifestyle as a predictor for colonic neoplasia in asymptomatic individuals. 
The authors have done a nice job of revising the manuscript. I 
recommend that this manuscript be accepted for publication; I also 
recommend that the authors consider revising the following sentence before publication (page 16, the last sentence of first paragraph is 
difficult to understand; I don't' know what the authors are trying to 
say here). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-4 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Humoral immune response to MUC5AC in patients with colorectal polyps and colorectal Title: 
carcinoma 
 3  6 November 2005 Version: Date: 
 Samuel B Ho Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have made the requested changes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
The abstract and discussion sections need grammar and writing corrections. For example, in the 
abstract: "were also negatively effect on patient survival" needs correction. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-3 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Management and Outcome of Bleeding Pseudoaneurysm Associated with Chronic Title: 
Pancreatitis 
 2  8 September 2005 Version: Date: 
 Albert Lowenfels Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
1. During the study period (1992-2004) how many patients with chronic pancreatitis were treated? 
This information will help readers estimate the frequency of this rather rare condition. 2. If possible, the authors should provide the time interval (years or months) from the time of 
diagnosis of the underlying disease (chronic pancreatitis) to the onset of hemorrhage. Again, this 
information will be useful to clinicians. 3. Update the reference list. The median year of publication for the listed references is 1991. Since 
then many new articles have been published with emphasis on embolization. For example, there is 
an excellent review of 79 similar papers providing information on 214 patients. (Balachandra S 
Siriwardena AK. Systematic appraisal of the management of the major vascular complications of 
pancreatitis. Am J Surg 2005; 190: 489-495. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 1. Was angiography and arterial embolization in use at the hospital during the entire period? Does 
this have any bearing on patient treatment? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-3 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Management and Outcome of Bleeding Pseudoaneurysm Associated with Chronic Title: 
Pancreatitis 
 3  3 December 2005 Version: Date: 
 Peter Malfertheiner Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
Well written paper on bleeding pseudoaneurysms associated with chronic pancreatitis. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
Authors have addressed questions satisfactorily. 
No further revisions needed. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-3 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Management and Outcome of Bleeding Pseudoaneurysm Associated with Chronic Title: 
Pancreatitis 
 3  6 December 2005 Version: Date: 
 Adrian Saftoiu Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The manuscript presents an interesting retrospective case series of 9 patients with bleeding pseudoaneurysms in chronic pancreatitis. Although the number of patients is small and a potential selection bias might influence a subgroup comparison, we do however think that the article would be 
interesting to appear in print. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
The major compulsory revisions were satisfactorily performed and subsequent changes of the manuscript done by the authors. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
A minor essential revision concerning the title was not corrected, however. It is not clear from the 
presented data how the diagnosis of a "bleeding" pseudoaneurysm was achieved in the last two 
patients that presented only with abdominal pain. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
The conclusion in question was deleted. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-2 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Comparison Between Oral Omeprazole and Intra-venous Cimetidine in Reducing some Title: 
Complications of Duodenal Peptic Ulcers 
 1  28 March 2005 Version: Date: 
 Xavier Calvet Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
1. English needs an extensive review. 
2. Reporting data should comply with the requirements of the CONSORT statement. This consensus 
document establishes the standard guidelines for reporting clinical trials. It is available by internet 
and has been published by the major journals. 
Particular points: 
The review of the scientific evidence is incomplete. Recent reviews (as the recent meta-analysis 
published in BMJ this year or the Cochrane review on the topic should be cited and commented in 
the introduction and discussion). 
The material and methods require extensive review: 
The randomization and the allocation concealment methods should be given. 
Details on endoscopic treatment should be given. In addition, and importantly, the number of 
endoscopically treated patients in each group is an very important data to be given. 
Reports of endoscopic stigmata should be done according to the Forrest classification. The actual 
classification (table II) is incorrect, as spurting or oozing bleeding are subgroups of the active bleeding groups, not separate categories. 
The rate of rebeeding in the cimetidine group is tremendously high (50%). This may be because the 
loose criteria for rebleeding used in the study. I suggest including in the report an analysis using more standard criteria for rebleeding as, for example, any of the used in the study associated to either endoscopic confirmation of rebleeding or need for surgery. 
The number of patients that required a second endoscopic treatment should also be stated. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-2 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 A comparison of oral omeprazole and intravenous cimetidine in reducing complications of Title: 
duodenal peptic ulcer 
 2  28 June 2005 Version: Date: 
 Xavier Calvet Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
I appreciate very much the authors answers to my suggestions, but the content of their answers 
should be also incorporated in the text. Moreover, in addition to citing the CONSORT statement in 
the introduction, CONSORT statement recommendations should be followed. CONSORT statement 
depicts the requirements for adequately publishing a randomized trial, including a flow diagram on 
the evolution of patients, and adequate report of inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, randomization 
and concealment methods, etc. that are currently not included in the paper, even in the revised 
version. It is mandatory to adequate the paper to such standard recommendations. 
Additionally, to my previous comments, I believe that it is necessary to comment on the method of 
administration of omeprazole. It is commonly believed that omeprazole administered as a powder is 
quickly inactivated by gastric acid loosing a part of its effect. It could be necessary to comment why 
omeprazole was administered as suspension and not as a capsule. 
If patients were randomly distributed it is impossible that they were matched by age and sex. This 
fact should be expressed as no significant differences in age or sex distribution were found between 
the randomization arms and the statemnet on matching deleted. 
In the results the authors state that duration of active bleeding was longer in the cimetidine group. 
This statement is difficult to interpret as there is not described in the text what active bleeding means 
or how the authors measured the duration of active bleeding. 
The term bleeding due to drugs is confusing. It the authors mean that they excluded patients on 
anticoagulant therapy, this should be explicitly stated. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-2 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 A comparison of oral omeprazole and intravenous cimetidine in reducing complications of Title: 
duodenal peptic ulcer 
 2  8 July 2005 Version: Date: 
 Fook Hong H Ng Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The English language has to be improved. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-2 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 A comparison of oral omeprazole and intravenous cimetidine in reducing complications of Title: 
duodenal peptic ulcer 
 2  11 August 2005 Version: Date: 
 Marika Mikelsaar Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This study did not provide any new theoretical approaches as the effect of omeprazole in emergency 
situations (bleeding ulcer) has been proved. The authors also state it quite clearly in their 
Introduction, describing “Omeprazole as PPI prevents re-bleeding by increasing gastric pH and 
stabilizing the blood clot”. 
It is also well-known that H2 blockers can be efficiently used to facilitate the healing of duodenal ulcers during the long-lasting course of disease yet they are not usually applied in emergency 
situation. 
Practical approach: However, as seemingly in many developing/non-industrialised countries the 
main choice of medicines depends on the cost-efficacy of the drugs, cimetidine/ranitidine seems to 
be widely used in gastroenterology. 
The value of the study is that the authors have now clearly shown that cimetidine has no proof for 
application in complicated with bleeding peptic ulcer. The high rate of re-bleeding (50%) should 
warn practitioners. 
The extraordinary high rate of re-bleeding in cimetidine group seemingly depends on the selection of 
patients. It can be supposed that in developing countries only serious disease will drive a person to 
get help from hospital. 
The aim of the study is well defined. 
The study groups are well characterized and the patients are recruited in sufficient numbers. The results are clearly presented. 
Discussion starts with an interesting but non-substantiated claim about differences in parietal cell 
mass reduction by omeprazole in Asians vs. Caucasians. However, the next sentences are not in accordance with this statement of the difference as in western community omeprazole acts quite 
similarly by supporting the blood clot. This paragraph needs rephrasing. 
Conclusions and aims are in good accordance and relevant. 
Yet, it seems the last sentence should clearly express the advantage of omeprasole suggesting its 
use in gastrointestinal bleeding cases never mind the cost. 
I suggest accepting the manuscript with minor revision. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-2 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 A comparison of oral omeprazole and intravenous cimetidine in reducing complications of Title: 
duodenal peptic ulcer 
 3  11 October 2005 Version: Date: 
 Xavier Calvet Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
1. There is an aparent contradiction between the material and methods where the authoprs state 
that patients bleeding because of drugs were excluded and cite specifically NSAIDs and table 1 
showing that near 50% of the patients were on NSAID therapy. 
2. As far as I know, PPI's decrease acid secretion but not parietal cell mass. I suppose there has 
been an error in the redaction of the first paragraph of the discussion. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-1 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Development of bile duct bezoar after cholecystectomy caused by choledochoduodenal fistula Title: 
formation: case report 
 5  14 October 2005 Version: Date: 
 Tony C Tham Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
There are still many grammatical errors. I suggest that the authors find someone, or an editing 
service, to help them rewrite it. It is purely speculative that drugs such as steroids and methotrexate are risk factors for formation of 
a fistula. The authors should delete references to these drugs and other immunosuppresants. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-39 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Outcome following emergency surgery for refractory severe ulcerative colitis in a tertiary care Title: 
centre in India 
 2  7 July 2005 Version: Date: 
 Neil H Hyman Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
--------none----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
I enjoyed this paper. Clearly the management was state of the art and I agree with the management 
principles. However,I really think the conclusion needs to be reassessed. The pts who had surgery 
more than 5 days were delayed owing to medical comrbidities(eg heart disease) or because of a 
delay in transfer from an outlying hospital. These selection factors are far more likely to cause the 
poorer outcomes than the delay itself-note that all 10 pts with perforation survived. As such, early 
surgery seemed to be a marker for a healthier patient with fewer comorbidities. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-39 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Outcome following emergency surgery for refractory severe ulcerative colitis in a tertiary care Title: 
centre in India 
 2  25 July 2005 Version: Date: 
 Willem A A Bemelman Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The presented manuscript represents a retrospective study of the results of emergency surgery for refractory ulcerative colitis. A total of 72 patients are decribed operated during an 18-years period. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
Patients&Methods: Since the authors look at timing of surgery, "lack of response" must be defined. Why was a period of 
5 days chosen to compare the surgical results. It is not clear of this period is 5 days after admittance 
or 5 days after falure of therapy. 
Results 
A table with patient data is missing: It is important to have information with respect to sexe, age, 
malnutrition, duration of in hospital therapy, steroid treatment, other immunosuppressives etc, type 
of procedure, management of the rectosigmoid. 
It is not logic to have a patient group operated for complications and one operated for failure of 
medical therapy. Mortality was an efficacy parameter to look at early and late surgery in the 
refractory group. It is not clear from this results section which complications occurred in which group. 
Discussion 
It is difficult to interpretate the conclusion that early surgery is beneficial if there are no definitions of 
"refractory to medication", if it is ill defined why one patient was operated < 5 days and the other > 5 
days, and if it is unclear how long patients had intensive medical treatment. The patients that had surgery for complications are probably also within the delayed group. 
It makes more sense to perform a regression analysis of several factors (timing of surgery, 
nutritional state, period in time, type of surgery, medical treatment) in relation to morbidity and mortality. 
In the discussion results are discussed that have not been reported earlier in the manuscript. This is 
unusual. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
Abstract: 
It is not clear from the abstract what happened with 72-51=21 patients 
poor nutritional sate must be defined. 
 Reject because scientifically unsound What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-39 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Outcome following emergency surgery for refractory severe ulcerative colitis in a tertiary care Title: 
centre in India 
 3  6 October 2005 Version: Date: 
 Neil H Hyman Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
NA------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
NA 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
Na-this is a secondary review 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-39 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Outcome following emergency surgery for refractory severe ulcerative colitis in a tertiary care Title: 
centre in India 
 3  25 October 2005 Version: Date: 
 Willem A A Bemelman Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
The authors have dealt with the comments of the reviewers sufficiently. 
If the Journal consider the subject important enough, it can be accepted for publication
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-38 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Role of rapid urease test and histopathology in the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection in Title: 
a developing country 
 3  4 October 2005 Version: Date: 
 B J Marshall Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors changes are ok, however, in the reference's it refers to Professor Marshall as 'DJ Marshall' this is incorrect. Professor Marshall's initials are 'BJ' so this needs to be changed. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-38 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Role of rapid urease test and histopathology in the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection in Title: 
a developing country 
 3  7 October 2005 Version: Date: 
 Max Bulsara Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I am happy with the statistical content and calculations of sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV, LR- and 
LR+. 
However in the Abstract the Conclusion reads "... rapid urease test was significantly reduced..." I am 
not sure how the authors arrived at this as no formal statistical test was carried out. 
I should also draw your attention to the small sample sizes. Although I am not am advocate of 
calculating retrospective sample sizes, the authors do need to comment on this as the results are far 
from been generalizable. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-37 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Protective effect of leptin against ischemia-reperfusion injury in the rat small intestine Title: 
 2  10 August 2005 Version: Date: 
 Nilüfer Erkasap Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Other than MDA measurement, some other parameters such as GSH would be better indication to 
show antioxidant effect of leptin 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-37 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Protective effect of leptin against ischemia-reperfusion injury in the rat small intestine Title: 
 2  22 August 2005 Version: Date: 
 Kenneth D Chavin Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
1. Overall, this is an interesting study representing an important subject of study. The results 
presented are straightforward and novel, however, the discussion and conclusions could be expanded to include a more detailed analysis of the results and their clinical relevance. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
We believe the following should be addressed: 
2. Extensive introduction was dedicated to the discussion of the NOS isoforms, especially NOS-III 
and its regulation by leptin as well as its ability to affect NO formation. In addition, it is stated in the 
manuscript's conclusion that "this study showed that the stimulatory effect of leptin on NOS-III 
significantly decreased under NOS-III inhibition by L-NAME". These statements may indeed be 
correct, however, NOS-III expression was not measured. 
3. In the conclusion it is stated that "leptin can be used safely in intestinal surgery, since it induces 
vasodialation of mesenteric vessels", but the ability of leptin to induce vasodialation of vessels was not measured in the animal/surgical model used in this study. 
4. Perhaps the discussion and conclusion should be focused more on the direct results found in this 
study. Also, a discussion of the heterogeneity of leptin expression and receptor function in the 
general population in relation to diabetes, obesity, etc. and the possible consequences of this on 
small intestine ischemia-reperfusion injury would be very interesting. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
5. In the third paragraph of the discussion, it is mentioned that "NO synthesis is inhibited 
by...L-NAME", however, in the next sentence it is said that "...tissue NO level significantly increased 
in the L-NAME-administered group". This is confusing and may be an error. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
6. Representative H&E photomicrographs would be a helpful addition as a figure in this manuscript. 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-37 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Protective effect of leptin against ischemia-reperfusion injury in the rat small intestine Title: 
 6  14 October 2005 Version: Date: 
 Kenneth D Chavin Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Overall, a nice improvement with all reponses appropriate. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
none 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
Gramatical review so it will read better 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests' below
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-37 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Protective effect of leptin against ischemia-reperfusion injury in the rat small intestine Title: 
 6  20 October 2005 Version: Date: 
 Thomas Brzozowski Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Thank you for the point-by-point-response to my critical comments. 
I am satisfied from the revised version of your MS and I have no more questions. 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-36 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Fibrinogen Storage Disease Associated With Estrogen Therapy Title: 
 1  18 April 2005 Version: Date: 
 Maria P. Foschini Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General: the paper describes and interesting case of fibrinogen storage disease associated with 
estrogen therapy. The case is well documented and provides a detailed review of the literature. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
No major changes are suggested: 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
Minor changes are suggested: 
Introduction, pag. 2, line 16: a short description of types II and III of fibrinogen storage disease 
should be added. 
pag. 7, line 13: "pancreas adenocancer cases" this sentence should be changed in "cases of 
pancreas adenocarcinoma" 
References: pag. 8, ref. 7, the name of the paper is not correct. 
Figures have been loaded with low quality files, before publication they should be converted in high 
quality files. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-35 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Measurement of the total antioxidant response using a novel automated method in subjects Title: 
with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis 
 5  18 April 2005 Version: Date: 
 Giulio Marchesini Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Horioz et al report data on the total antioxidant capacity and oxidative stress in NAFLD patients using a novel automated method. The results confirm the antioxidant capacity is reduced, whereas metabolites indicative of stress are higher than normal. 
I have no competence to comment on the analytical method they propose, and will limit my report to 
clinical and methodological aspects of the study. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
Previous data on hepatic oxidative stress have already been published (Videla LA, Rodrigo R, Orellana M et al. Oxidative stress-related parameters in the liver of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease 
patients. Clin Sci (Lond) 2004; 106:261-8.) and also data on circulating oxidative stress are known 
(Chalasani N, Deeg MA, Crabb DW. Systemic levels of lipid peroxidation and its metabolic and 
dietary correlates in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 
99:1497-502.) and should be discussed and quoted. 
The Pearson test cannot be used to demonstrate a correlation between a parametric variable (TAR, 
OSI, or TBARS) and a nominal variable (histology). This correlation should be tested by Spearman 
correlation analysis. Better, the association should be tested by means of logistic regression, having 
histology as dependent variable and oxidative stress as independent, corrected for covariates. The 
association should also be tested the other way round, having oxidative stress above a definite 
cut-off as dependent variable. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
The clinical, demographic and histological data of NAFLD cases are not part of the results. They 
should be better placed in the Method section, after the exclusion criteria. The discussion should be reduced by 50% without any loss of information. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Figures do not add much (see above). They should be omitted or presented in a more compact way. 
 Reject because too small an advance to publish What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests