JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-56 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Clinicopathologic characteristics and treatment outcomes of hepatoid
adenocarcinoma of stomach, a rare but unique subtype of gastric cancer
Version: 3Date:31 March 2011
Reviewer: John H Kalbfleisch
Reviewer's report:
These comments follow a request for statistical review.
Major Compulsory Revisions – none.
Minor Essential Revisions – none.
Discretionary Revisions
(1) Figures 2 and 3. The vertical upticks (5 in Fig 2, 8 in Fig 3) typically represent
censored observations (cases not achieving the target outcome - there are
several reasons this happens). In the Figure legend or in the Methods Section,
the authors can consider mentioning what these marks on the survival trend
signify.
(2) Figures 2-5. In figure grid the survival-key(s) can be removed since the figure
legends clearly explain the variation of survival that the K-M trend describes.
(3) Page 9, line 9. Relapse-free median survival (insert ‘median’ before ‘survival’)
(4) Figure 3 and related text on page 9. The authors can mention the P-level from
the comparison of survival trends of the two groups. The biggest difference
seems to occurr in the first 12 months and survival beyond 12 months looks
similar for the two groups. If the two survival trends in Figure 3 are statistically
compared, in the Methods Section the authors need to identify the method used
for this analysis. Also, the method used to determine 95% confidence intervals
for median survival can be clearly indicated in the Methods Section.
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. John H. Kalbfleisch, Ph.D.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-58 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Low bone mass in microscopic colitis
Version: 1Date:9 August 2010
Reviewer: John S Leeds
Reviewer's report:
The authors describe a small but interesting study concerning bone mineral
density changes in patients with microscopic colitis. This is worthy of publication
but some parts of the report require clarification:
Major compulsory revisions
1. More information is required concerning the recruitment of the individuals with
microscopic colitis e.g. consecutive patients? What is the size of this unit? Is this
a tertiary practice and how many patients do they treat with IBD in general.
Additionally, what treatments were they receiving and how many had received
steroids in the preceding 12 months?
2. More information is needed concerning the Crohn's comparison group. What
was the distibution of their disease. What medications were they taking and how
many courses of steroids had they received over the preceding 12 months?
Were there any differences in BMD in those who had purely colonic disease
compared to those with small bowel disease?
3. Why weren't patients with ulcerative colitis used as a comparison group? This
would have given further strength to the study.
4. In the results the number of patients with osteoporosis and osteopaenia are
given for those with microscopic colitis only. What numbers of patients with
Crohn's disease had reduced BMD as in the table average BMD findings are
given.
5. BMD can be affected by a large number of other factors such as smoking,
weightbearing exercise and BMI. It would be useful to show there are no
differences between the Crohn's group and the microscopic colitis group with
respect to these variables.
6. In the methods it is stated that a number of variables are recorded but they are
not reported in the results. This could be displayed in table form for all groups.
Minor essential revisions
1. Join together the final 2 sentences in the first paragraph of the introduction.
2. Patients and methods, second paragraph: budesonide.
3. Methods, paragraph 6: parathormone; thyroid.
4. Discussion, paragraphs 6, 7 and final: inappropriate use of colon and
semicolon.
5. Conclusion, final paragraph: suggest rewording.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-58 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Low bone mass in microscopic colitis
Version: 2Date:21 September 2010
Reviewer: Kazuhiro Ishiguro
Reviewer's report:
I uploaded my comments as BMCreview2.
My answer is Major Compulsory Revisions.
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 competing interest.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-58 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Low bone mass in microscopic colitis
Version: 2Date:11 October 2010
Reviewer: John S Leeds
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
NIL
Minor essential revisions
NIL
Discretionary revisions
Moderate grammatical issues but certainly reads better than the original
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-11-58 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Low bone mass in microscopic colitis
Version: 3Date:15 December 2010
Reviewer: Kazuhiro Ishiguro
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revision.
I send my comments as an attachment file.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-58 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Low bone mass in microscopic colitis
Version: 4Date:27 January 2011
Reviewer: Kazuhiro Ishiguro
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revision
Finally, only two critical concerns remain.
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:
No competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-58 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Low bone mass in microscopic colitis
Version: 5Date:5 March 2011
Reviewer: Kazuhiro Ishiguro
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revision
I can agree for publication of their work.
However, their manuscript still has some annoying faults. For example,
Figures are presented as Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3, while Figure 2A and
Figure 2B are indicated in the manuscript.
Although the authors claimed that their manuscript had been revised by "a native
English speaking lecturer; who is acknowledged at the end of the manuscript", I
strongly recommend them to ask professional experts to correct English and
presentation. I cannot spend my time any more.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-57 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Spontaneous remission of Crohn's disease following a febrile infection:
case report and literature review
Version: 1Date:24 December 2010
Reviewer: Filip J Baert
Reviewer's report:
The authors report on a rare but potentially interesting observation from a
pathogenic point of view.
However I recommend to considerably shorten the report to the essential
message and leave all speculations.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-57 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Spontaneous remission of Crohn's disease following a febrile infection:
case report and literature review
Version: 1Date:29 March 2011
Reviewer: Marcel A Behr
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions:
The medical description of the case used some unclear terminology (e.g. twisting
of the bowel) and left out key information (what did the surgeon report when
doing the operation in mid-March and what did the pathology report state about
the excised material). The medical description needs to be edited by an MD
(potentially the patient's treating doctor) to ensure clarity and accuracy. The
time-line should be presented with dates, rather than late-February, mid-March,
etc. I do not understand the use of cephalexin for surgical prophylaxis beginning
3 weeks before surgery; normally peri-operative prophylaxis is
given...peri-operatively. Was the patient receiving this antibiotic for the treatment
of a proven/presumed active infection? What is meant by a flu-like infection?
What exact symptoms did the patient experience?
The scientific description started off as very interesting, placing this anecdote in
the context of the emerging literature that supports an innate immune deficiency
in Crohn's disease. However, the discussion was more about Ulcerative Colitis,
rather than Crohn's, which made for some confusion in interpreting the historical
literature. Given the immune-deficiency paradigm introduced by the authors, I
would want to know whether anyone has tried fever therapy for chronic
granulomatous disease (which shares pathology and anti-microbial antibodies
with Crohn's) or chronic variable immune deficiency (which also shares pathology
with Crohn's disease). Are there any case reports / case series of fever resulting
in clinical improvement of these established immunedeficiency states?
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-11-57 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Spontaneous remission of Crohn's disease following a febrile infection:
case report and literature review
Version: 2Date:11 May 2011
Reviewer: Marcel A Behr
Reviewer's report:
the reviewers have addressed my concerns
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-55 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:The relationship between unrecognized gastroesophageal reflux disease
and excessive daytime sleepiness in Taiwan: A pilot study
Version: 2Date:13 January 2011
Reviewer: Yasuhiro Fujiwara
Reviewer's report:
Summary
The authors examined relationship between GERD and excessive daytime
sleepiness using two questionnaires including CESS and CGERDQ, and found
that about half of 73 patients with excessive daytime sleepiness without liver
diseases had GERD. This small clinical study has several problems in
methodology.
1- I could not understand why the primary care doctor suspected excessive
daytime sleepiness is related to liver disease. How many such patients visited at
the hospital? How many patients were excluded by exclusion criteria? Why the
authors excluded HBV and HCV carrier? Is there any evidence about positive
associations between daytime sleepiness and hepatitis virus carriers? In
addition, generally ESS is used for sleep apnea syndrome which might be
associated with GERD.
2- In results, the authors should show how many patients had positive ESS
(>10). It is no meaning that GERD patients showed higher score of CGERDQ
compared with non-GERD patients. Lack of control weakened the study power.
3- Although the study subjects had excessive daytime sleepiness, score of ESS
was low.
4- There are several grammatical errors in this manuscript.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-55 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:An association between unrecognized gastroesophageal reflux disease
and excessive daytime sleepiness in Taiwanese subjects suspected to have liver
disease: a pilot study
Version: 3Date:22 April 2011
Reviewer: William C Orr
Reviewer's report:
The authors have done a very nice job of carefully responding to the reviewer's
comments and I believe they have substantially improved this 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-11-55 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:An association between unrecognized gastroesophageal reflux disease
and excessive daytime sleepiness in Taiwanese subjects suspected to have liver
disease: a pilot study
Version: 3Date:27 April 2011
Reviewer: Yasuhiro Fujiwara
Reviewer's report:
None
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-11-54 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:The Association of Serum Lipids with the Histological Pattern of
Rectosigmoid Adenoma in Taiwanese Adults
Version: 3Date:13 December 2010
Reviewer: Patricia Thompson
Reviewer's report:
Review manuscript titled "The Association of Serum Lipids with the histological
patterns of rectosigmoid adenoma in Taiwanese Adults" Sun et al.
The manuscript is very well written and focused on the relationship between
serum lipid levels and histologic features of rectosigmoid adenomas at detection
using data from 2506 otherwise healthy screened individuals. The investigators
show a strong independent association between serum triglyceride levels and
adenoma with villous histology even after accounting for obesity and diabetes
determined by fasting glucose tolerance testing. The study is well conducted and
adds knowledge to the field.
Minor Essential Revisions. The one concern that I think the authors really need to
address to make this a higher impact paper is the issue of age. Clearly, the no
adenoma group is considerably younger. Age is both a major risk factor for
adenoma and elevated serum lipids. The authors have adjusted for age as a
confounder, which is appropriate. However it would be informative to evaluate
the relationship between TG and adenoma by age strata and also by gender.
While the study may be underpowered for the more advanced histology, results
of stratified analyses, even if exploratory in nature, would be informative as it is
unclear if these relationships are present in younger individuals or restricted to
older populations. This would help to inform on when interventions targeting TGs
or other serum lipids would make sense.
Discretionary Revisions
The data suggest the primary factor of interest is TG and not 'insulin' related
features. The discussion might benefit from focus around those factors that are
mechanistically related to TGs such as increased fecal bile acid content and
effects on the colonic environment including effects on gut flora. This would also
slightly shorten a fairly long discussion text.
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-11-54 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:The Association of Serum Lipids with the Histological Pattern of
Rectosigmoid Adenoma in Taiwanese Adults
Version: 4Date:6 February 2011
Reviewer: Georgia Lazaraki
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the authors:
• In this study the authors try to elucidate the relationship between dyslipidemia
and adenoma formation of the left colon. It is a well written manuscript with a
meticulous statistical analysis. The authors had sufficiently responded to my
comments.
• Discretionary revisions: What is odd to me is that, although the authors provide
the stratified data for age and gender regarding adenoma histology and lipids
levels in the point-by-point response (according to the other reviewer’s
comments), these are not included in the results part of the revised manuscript
after all.
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-11-54 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:The Association of Serum Lipids with the Histological Pattern of
Rectosigmoid Adenoma in Taiwanese Adults
Version: 4Date:12 February 2011
Reviewer: Patricia Thompson
Reviewer's report:
The authors were very responsive to prior review. The manuscript needs minor
editing to be consistent with standard english grammar. No remaining concerns.
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-11-53 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Design and rationale of the HCC BRIDGE study in China: a longitudinal,
multicenter cohort trial in hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 1Date:22 February 2011
Reviewer: Markus Buchler
Reviewer's report:
Dear Sir,
The article entitled “Design and rationale of the HCC BRIDGE study in China: a
longitudinal, multicenter cohort trial in hepatocellular carcinoma” has been
reviewed. This is an interesting cohort trial topic. With appreciation to the authors’
efforts, the requested questions are answered below:
1. Will the study design adequately test the hypothesis?
Yes. It has been well designed and the idea had been good, especially due to the
increasing rate of HCC due to viral cirrhosis.
2. Are sufficient details provided to allow replication of the work or comparison
with related analyses: if not, what is missing?
Yes. Due to handling a large number of cases using a longitudinal multicentre
cohort, we suggest that the article should be also evaluated by a medical
statistician.
3. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition: if not, in what ways?
Yes. The manuscript considers the relevant standards to report the data.
4. Is the writing acceptable?
Somehow, but despite having a good structure, the method of the writing was
sometimes not good due to using a lot of strange words and phrases as well as
incorrect use of prepositions, denoting and tenses. Moreover, some sentences
are really too long, which distract the readers. The manuscript will profit by
editing by a native speaker.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-53 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Design and rationale of the HCC BRIDGE study in China: a longitudinal,
multicenter cohort trial in hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 1Date:30 March 2011
Reviewer: Francisco Gude
Reviewer's report:
The present manuscript is a prospective large scale study including patients
newly diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The study may give a
broader understanding of current treatment approaches to HCC and associated
clinical outcomes.
However it is an observational study, not a randomized clinical trial. In addition,
patients treated during the period when sorafenib was not available will act as
historic controls. Therefore the authors should be cautious about their
conclusions when comparing sorafenib versus other therapies.
Statistical analyses are adequate, with the exception that the authors do not
explain the estimates for the sample size. It is supposed that 9000 patients is a
big sample. Why 9000?
In relation to the STROBE Statement: All items have been included.
I still find the manuscript worth publishing since such large scale studies are very
difficult to perform, time consuming and may help to improve clinical studies on
cancer.
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-11-52 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prediction of response to PPI therapy and factors influencing treatment
outcome in patients with GORD: a prospective pragmatic trial
Version: 1Date:10 January 2011
Reviewer: Frank Zerbib
Reviewer's report:
This is a very interesting study that involved a huge number of patients with
GERD symptoms in which the factors associated to response to PPIs were
determined. The authors defined the response to PPIs by the means of the
Request questionnaire which has been validated previously. The authors report
that poor response was associated with low BMI, female gender, nonerosive
disease, IBS and anxiety.
This well done study allows identifying the main factors associated with poor
response to PPI. No pH or pH-impedance study was done but it is easy to
understand regarding the number of patients invoved worldwide. Most of the
identified factors associated with poor response were expected.
- Major Compulsory Revisions
1- It is not very clear to me whether the statistical analysis is univariate or
multivariate. If I understand well it is an univariate analysis and a multivariate
analysis is mandatory since many factors may be associated (i.e. gender, BMI,
and IBS).
2- The role of IBS was expected but the problem of functional dyspepsia is even
more important in the context of GERD. Why were dyspeptic symptoms not
assessed? Many dyspeptic symptoms are taken into account by the Request
questionnaire (as well as IBS symptoms) and may account for the absence of
response defined by the Request scores.
- Minor Essential Revisions
1- Endoscopy data were missing for only 12/1888 patients which is a very
impressive results and quite hard to understand. What was the actual "screen
failure" rate (i.e. patients not included because the refused to be scoped)? How
many patients where scoped while on or juste after one or several courses of
PPIs? This may have affected the results regarding the grade of esophagitis.
2- The role of low BMI was unexpected but this is the second study showing
similar results (Fletcher et al, Gut 2011 published online). This may be added to
the discussion as well as potential mechanisms involved to explain this result
(symptoms more likely related to GERD with increased BMI?).
- Discretionary Revisions
I would delete figures 2 and 4
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-52 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prediction of response to PPI therapy and factors influencing treatment
outcome in patients with GORD: a prospective pragmatic trial
Version: 2Date:13 April 2011
Reviewer: Frank Zerbib
Reviewer's report:
I thank the authors for the additional statistical analysis they have performed. I
think it was an important point and that the results of the multivariate analysis
reinforces their results.
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 interest
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-52 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prediction of response to PPI therapy and factors influencing treatment
outcome in patients with GORD: a prospective pragmatic trial
Version: 2Date:14 April 2011
Reviewer: Leonardo Marzio
Reviewer's report:
The paper may be accepted for pubblication.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-51 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Long-term follow-up of nonspecific small bowel ulcers with a benign course
and no requirement for surgery: are these a distinct group?
Version: 1Date:24 January 2011
Reviewer: Takayuki Matsumoto
Reviewer's report:
The authors address the nature and long-term outcome of non-specific small
bowel ulcers, which were not, unfortunately, well-defined in the manuscript.
Major comments:
1. The authors defined ulcer as "being no smaller than 3mm in diameter with
significant depth". However, most ulcers in this manuscript were small (almost
near 3mm) and superficial, typically observed in Fig. 1. This may raise the
possibility that most cases in this manuscript can be categorized as "Non-specific
small bowel ulcers" as the other papers defined as "erosions or nonspecific
ileitis".
2. These small ulcers or erosions in ileum could be found in 1-3% of the
screening colonoscopy or colonoscopy for diarrhea patients. (Joeng SH, et al. J
Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 23:51-55. and Ref. 25.
3. Are there any possibilities that the clinical course and outcome differ in the
present patients and reported cases as nonspecific small bowel ulcer (p.7)
because the present cases include mild ileitis sometimes observed in the
screening colonoscopy?
4. The present cases include non-symptomatic patient (case 7) and single small
erosion only on ileocecal valve. Those patients could be non-symptomatic , and
therefore, it is not always link to the IBS symptoms. It is not suitable to sum up
these cases to a single syndrome.
5. Matsumoto, et al. defined CNSU (Ref. 18) as having more than 20 ulcers in
the small bowel. The authors should describe.
6. In discussion (p.8), the authors described that the negative effects of %-ASA
as a basis to deny inflammatory bowel disease. However 40% of the IBD patients
do not respond to 5-ASA.
Minor comments:
1. How about the fecal occult blood test?
2. Table 1; “female” to “Female”
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-51 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Long-term follow-up of nonspecific small bowel ulcers with a benign course
and no requirement for surgery: are these a distinct group?
Version: 1Date:26 January 2011
Reviewer: Masahiko Inamori
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
#1. In the paragraph of pathological evaluation of method, you should provide in
detail from which portion of ulcers did you take the biopsy specimens. (the
bottom, edge or both?)
#2.You used the word “ related gastrointestinal symptoms” in the second
paragraph of discussion. However, in the section of result, you reported that the
gastrointestinal symptoms did not always correlate with the presence of ulcers,
and the word “related” should be eliminated.
#3. In the third paragraph of discussion, you mentioned the difference of
indications for investigation between previous reports and this study. Considering
selection bias, you should illustrate the clinical features of patients who
underwent colonoscopy at Chinese PLA General Hospital. (the indications for
investigation in all the patient who underwent colonoscopy at Chinese PLA
General Hospital)
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-51 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Long-term follow-up of nonspecific small bowel ulcers with a benign course
and no requirement for surgery: is this a distinct group?
Version: 3Date:5 April 2011
Reviewer: Takayuki Matsumoto
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has been much improved, but still has one point to be clarified.
The authors defined ulcers as “being no smaller than 3mm in diameter with
significant depth”. But most ulcers in your manuscript seemed smaller than your
definition (I have already mentioned it in the major comment #1). Do all the
present cases really have “ulcers”? Your answer did not resolve my question. Did
you measure them by using the linear endoscopic probes, open biopsy forceps
or just visual estimation?. The authors should add the technique you adopted to
“Methods”.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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-11-51 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Long-term follow-up of nonspecific small bowel ulcers with a benign course
and no requirement for surgery: is this a distinct group?
Version: 3Date:6 April 2011
Reviewer: Kazuhide Higuchi
Reviewer's report:
non
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:
non
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-51 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Long-term follow-up of nonspecific small bowel ulcers with a benign course
and no requirement for surgery: is this a distinct group?
Version: 3Date:8 April 2011
Reviewer: Masahiko Inamori
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript is interesting and suitable for publication.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-50 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:A pH-sensitive gel added improves the stability of microemulsion for
orientating removal of colonic ammonia in gastrointestinal tract
Version: 2Date:21 September 2010
Reviewer: BEOM-JIN LEE
Reviewer's report:
No page numbering is very difficult for me to review the manuscript!!
The microemulsion-based gels for removal of ammonia in colon were prepared to
prevent hepatic encephalopathy. Colonic ammonia, appearances and pH values
of gastrointestinal fluid were detected. However, the system is poorly designed
and NOT scientifically clear. The w/o microemulsion formulation design should
be clearly described.
The goal is very unclear. The background should be clearly described why the
microemulsion is useful to remove ammonia in colon. The references are also
needed.
More importantly, there is no information of o/w ME formulation and preparation
method in EXP part. How do you prove the type of ME?
The alginate is stable in low pH but swells in high pH solution. However, it’s hard
to say that the alginate system containing w/o microemulsion is pH sensitive and
stable in GI system.
The alginate gel is widely used for controlled release drug delivery but not a good
candidate of adsorption of ammonia. What is the adsorption principle of w/o
ME-RA or MBD-RA?
Show the physical stability of w/o ME when added to the alginate aqueous gel.
Explain the detailed route of administration in rats (Group I, II, III).
There are many types of gels commercially available. Explain the specific
reasons to select the alginate gels.
How can you determine the concentration of ammonia?
What is the meaning of “Proper proportion of both preparation~~” Explain the
“Proper”!
Abstract part: Explain the unclear text “In simulative gastrointestinal process
MBGs-RA could [0]keep more stable and release emulsion(ME-RA) in colon
fluid”
What is the MBGs-RA[0]?
How do you measure the stability and release emulsion (ME-RA) from MBE-RA
in GI tract?
Is the pH changes an index of stability?
In general, the texts are poorly written and unclear. There are many errors and
mistakes in texts and sentences to be improved English. I recommend editorial
service of the manuscript.
Experiemetal part : “The clearance rates of artificial colon ammonia were
compared in the simulative gastrointestinal transit time and pH environment,
performed as described before.”
“After stained by sudan #, the morphous of the collected content in each group
was observed under microscope”
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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-11-50 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:A pH-sensitive gel added improves the stability of microemulsion for
orientating removal of colonic ammonia in gastrointestinal tract
Version: 3Date:21 December 2010
Reviewer: Sontaya Limmatvapirat
Reviewer's report:
Here are some additional comments regarding with the revised manuscript. I
hope it should be beneficial for improving your work.
Minor Essential Revisions
Title
- Please avoid using article in the title
- The title seems still unclear. Here is the example of title that may help you to
modify it.
“Fabrication of stabilized microemulsion for reduction of colonic ammonia through
incorporation of pH-sensitive gel”
Other parts
- Most of mis-spelling and grammatical errors in the abstract and other parts
were corrected. Anyway, I still find some errors, e.g. “PH” (pH),….Please re-send
the revised manuscript to your native English speaker again before resubmitting.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-50 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:A pH-sensitive gel added improves the stability of microemulsion for
orientating removal of colonic ammonia in gastrointestinal tract
Version: 3Date:2 January 2011
Reviewer: BEOM-JIN LEE
Reviewer's report:
I still wonder whether the current w/o microemulsion in sodium alginate gel is
applicable to adsorb ammonia produced in colon with good reliability. The acetic
acid in gel may neutralize ammonia but it has no any proof to retain acetic acid to
colon as well.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-50 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:The addition of a pH-sensitive gel improves microemulsion stability for the
targeted removal of colonic ammonia
Version: 6Date:6 March 2011
Reviewer: Francisco Gude
Reviewer's report:
After reading the manuscript , this reviewer is not able to understand the study
design.
Methods Section,Paragraph on page 6:"18 rats are randomized into three
groups." The first group consists of rats with a three-way pipe that was placed at
the gastroduodenal junction.
So what are the groups containing the rats given ME-RCA or MBG-RCA?
Or ME-RCA and MBG-RCA were administered to all rats?
Is there a control group? Is this group containing 6 rats?
The design is confusing.
Perhaps a flow chart may help to describe the study design.
In the statistical analysis, the authors have used repeated measures analysis of
variance and t-test. Which groups do they compare? Which times are they
considering in the comparisons?
It is difficult to understand, and even more so if the study design is confusing.
In results, the authors mentioned that the clearance rates of ME-RCA and
MBG-RCA for ammonia in the artificial colonic fluid were 51.9 ± 1.85% and 55.92
± 4.76%, respectively.
How the data are expressed? Mean ± SD or mean ± SE?
In summary, the authors should be more clear and precise with the study design
and data analysis.
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-11-50 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:The addition of a pH-sensitive gel improves microemulsion stability for the
targeted removal of colonic ammonia
Version: 8Date:14 April 2011
Reviewer: Francisco Gude
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed the comments raised during previous review.
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-11-49 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Reproductive factors and oesophageal cancer in Chinese women: a
case-control study
Version: 1Date:7 February 2011
Reviewer: Ian Beales
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting, but relatively small study. The authors have presented their
data and arguments clearly.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The main issues relates to the histological types of cancer studied here. There
seems to be no doubt that adenocarcinoma and squamous carcinoma are
different aetiolgies and pathogenesis and it would not be at all surprising if they
had different relationships to parity etc. The curren data needs representing to
provide the relationships with the two different cancers. In addition how where
these cancers diagnosed
2. What effects were made to confound for other medications - it seems quite
clear that aspirin and NSAID use protects against some forms of oesophageal
cancer, was this analyzed?
3. Some more definition is needed for some of the potentual confounding factors
- how was reflux characterised in this study? Oesophagal cancer is typically
associated with weight loss but how was the BMI related to the cases defined?
4. Please provide the relevent code numbers for the ethics and governance
approvals
Minor revisions
5. First is spelt incorrectly in the conclusions
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-11-49 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Reproductive factors and oesophageal cancer in Chinese women: a
case-control study
Version: 2Date:28 March 2011
Reviewer: Neal D Freedman
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions:
The authors have done an excellent job responding to my comments and those
of the other reviewers.
I have several additional points which should be addressed by the reviewers
before the manuscript is acceptable for publication.
1. Please add the results for age at menopause to the abstract and to the results
section (top of page 9).
2. Update global cancer incidence rates using globalcan 2008:
http://globocan.iarc.fr/
3. The authors mention that the male/female ratio is up to 8:1 in Western
countries; yet somewhat lower in Asian countries. According to globalcan 2008,
the overall sex ratio for esophageal cancer is about 2 in China. Thus, the authors
statement is misleading.
4. On the top of page 5, the authors mention that “tobacco smoking plays only a
moderate role as a risk factor for this cancer.” This statement is false. Smoking is
a strong cause of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and is a consistent risk
factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma as well. In most western populations, men
and smoke similar amounts. Thus, in Western populations, differences in
smoking use between men and women are not likely to cause higher rates of
esophageal cancer in men.
In China, however, men tend to smoke more cigarettes and drink more alcoholic
beverages than women. It is possible that these differences in cigarette smoking
and alcohol drinking may explain part of the difference in esophageal cancer
incidence rates in men and women in China. The authors should mention these
points.
5. The authors should clearly indicate in their introduction that while several
studies have investigated the association of menstrual and reproductive factors
with esophageal adenocarcinoma, few studies have examined associations with
esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. As currently written, this section implies
that esophageal adenocarcinoma in Western countries is comparable to
esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China, it is not.
6. Replace “cot-off” with “cut-off” in the top of page 8.
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-11-49 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Reproductive factors and oesophageal cancer in Chinese women: a
case-control study
Version: 2Date:30 March 2011
Reviewer: Ian Beales
Reviewer's report:
This iteration of the manuscript is much improved and a pleasure to read. The
paper is easy to follow and logical.
Major Compulsory Revisions.
1. I do not understand how the authors claim that the risk of esophageal cancer
is inversely related to age at first birth? Pages 3 and 9. The risk appears to
increase with age at first birth. If the risk were inversely related to age at first birth
would not the OR be lower for the those mothers giving birth later in life?
2. Was any effort made to correct for the consumption of potential confounding
factors particualrly aspirin and NSAID use? It may be that these factors are not
prevalent in this population but even if this is the case, the manuscript should
cover this.
3. Although I do think the overall paper would be improved by actually including
the data for squamous and adenocarcinomas separately as well as pooled. The
authors do mention briefly, some subgroup analysis but I do feel that at the very
least the OR for birth age (the main significant finding of this study) should be
provided separately for both histological types of cancer. These data can be
provided within the text of the results section. Even if not statistically significant, it
would be useful to include these.
Discretionary Revisions
4. I would recommend including tables on squamous and adenocarcinomas
separately as well as the pooled 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, 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-11-47 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Safety and efficacy of the immunosuppressive agent 6-tioguanine in
murine model of acute colitis
Version: 1Date:29 July 2010
Reviewer: Silvia Melgar
Reviewer's report:
The paper by Kverka et al, describes the efficacy and safety of 6-TG in
comparison to AZA in an acute model of colitis.
The work is correctly performed with good number of mice per treatment group
as well as analysis performed. Although the authors show a safe and efficacious
treatment using 6-TG over AZA in this murine model, I have some concerns
regarding the study.
Major comments
Is AZA and/or 6TG well absorbed by the gut?
In order to induce remission by AZA, IBD patients are treated for much longer
period of time than the current study i.e.9 days, have the authors used a longer
AZA-treatment in a chronic model of colitis?
Is 6-TG safe and efficacious in a chronic model of colitis?
Is the infiltration/injury seen in AZA-treated DSS-colitic mice also found in healthy
mice? Or is the effect exagereated by inflammation? Similarly, the authors seem
to detect some infiltration in 6-TG treated mice, have they analysed healthy
treated mice? These experiments should be included as controls to the provided
data.
Have the authors analysed the expression of cytokines in the colon?
Minor comments
Liver fig from 6TG treated mice should be included in Fig 3
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interest
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-47 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Safety and efficacy of the immunosuppressive agent 6-tioguanine in
murine model of acute colitis
Version: 1Date:12 October 2010
Reviewer: Yuji Naito
Reviewer's report:
In the present study, the authors investigate the safety and efficacy of
immunomodulators against DSS-induced colitis. However, they showed only the
disease activities and histological findings without any immunological or
inflammation data in spite of investigating the effect of immunomodulators. In
addition, the investigation of safety is a quite preliminary data.
The present form should be revised according to the following suggestion.
1) They should compare the serum concentration of 6TGNs between two drugs,
2) They should investigate the immunological parameters to understand the
properties of these drugs.
3) Analysis for safety is not enough.
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.