JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03589-5 (2025)

Title: Associations between changes in the gut microbiota and liver cirrhosis: a systematic
review and meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 11 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting systematic review, worthy of publication after correction
1) the abstract should not describe in detail the biodiversity indices, especially with numerical
characteristics - this is not interesting;
2) the abstract should indicate as many taxa as possible that showed significant and insignificant
differences with the control groups, especially at the level of higher taxa;
3) the conclusion indicates minor taxa that have a minimal effect on the macroorganism and are
unlikely to be useful in the  analysis of cirrhosis; authors have  good data on the differential
content of main taxa were and should indicate them  in the conclusions (without numerical
characteristics);
4) intestinal microbiota cannot be used to differentiate patients with cirrhosis from healthy
individuals - there are simpler methods for this; it could be useful in differentiating compensated
cirrhosis from chronic liver diseases at the pre-cirrhotic stage, but this was not studied in your
work, so this statement should be excluded;
5) a number of authors (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34131470/; https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24374295/) proposed dysbiosis ratios for the analysis of gut
microbiota in cirrhosis; this should be discussed based on your data;
6) it should be noted that in cirrhosis, the abundance of taxa of harmful facultative anaerobes
(Bacilli; Proteobacteria; families of these taxa) that are able to survive in oxygenated tissues
and are therefore capable of bacterial translocation is increased, and the abundance of beneficial
obligate anaerobes (Clostridia and families of this class) that are not capable of bacterial
translocation is decreased
7) the Firmicutes phylum is represented by 2 main classes Bacilli and Clostridia, which change in
different directions in cirrhosis and have different role in the gut microbiota; a meta-analysis of
the abundance of these taxa should be conducted and this should be indicated in the Discussion.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03589-5 (2025)

Title: Associations between changes in the gut microbiota and liver cirrhosis: a systematic
review and meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 16 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Maged Tharwat Elghannam
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript, a meta-analysis study, discusses the changes in gut microbiota in patients
with liver cirrhosis of different etiologies. This information may be important in diagnosis and
therapy. It is not clear if these changes are the result or cause of the disease. A causal relationship
is needed.
Few comments:
-Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)------------
> Metabolic-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) and metabolic-associated Fatty liver disease
(MASLD).
-Can you add a paragraph discussing how these results help prevent cirrhosis complications such
as HCC or hepatic encephalopathy?
-Is there any role for these gut microbiota changes in precipitating esophageal variceal bleeding?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03571-7 (2025)

Title: Inflammatory bowel disease increases the risk of pancreatitis: A two-sample bidirectional
mendelian randomization analysis
Version: 1 Date: 13 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
The present study aimed to explore the potential causal relationship between inflammatory
bowel disease (IBD) and pancreatitis through Mendelian randomization (MR). Utilizing
genome-wide association study (GWAS) data from European individuals, the analysis revealed
that a genetic predisposition to pancreatitis is associated with an increased risk of IBD.
Specifically, ulcerative colitis (UC) was found to elevate the risk of acute pancreatitis, while
Crohn’s disease (CD) was linked to a higher risk of chronic pancreatitis. These findings suggest
a differential impact of IBD subtypes on pancreatitis risk.  Before the manuscript is officially
published, I believe some revisions are necessary.
In Table 1, the data sources for pancreatitis should be from FinnGen rather than IIBDGC.
Currently, FinnGen has updated GWAS data for pancreatitis with a larger number of cases. The
authors could consider utilizing these updated data to increase statistical power, as the existing
p-values are not robust enough. The pancreatitis GWAS data in this article only come from the
FinnGen cohort; perhaps the authors could use the UK Biobank (UKB) pancreatitis GWAS data
for validation.
In the methodology, the authors should clearly specify how the F-statistic was calculated,
including the overall F-statistic and the F-statistic for each instrumental variable, as well as R^2.
Refer to this article (PMID: 36904153). I suggest showing the overall F-statistic in Figure 3
instead of the maximum and minimum F-statistic.
Could the authors perform a reverse MR analysis to investigate whether there is a causal effect of
pancreatitis on IBD? Given that there are fewer instrumental variables for pancreatitis GWAS,
the authors could use a more lenient threshold (1E-5).
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03571-7 (2025)

Title: Inflammatory bowel disease increases the risk of pancreatitis: A two-sample bidirectional
mendelian randomization analysis
Version: 1 Date: 06 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This is the review of the manuscript titled "Inflammatory bowel
disease increases the risk of pancreatitis: A two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis".
in this paper authors used Mendelian Randomization (MR) to investigate causality of the
genetic connections between two diseases 1) IBD (Crohn' and Ulcerative colitis subtypes) and
pancreatitis (acute and chronic subtypes). This is interesting MS, which is not written as very
dry technical report. To improve this MS, the following is needed:
1) As in case of acute and chronic pancreatitis the pathophysiology is shared, when one clearly
predisposes to another and there is a mutuality of risk factors,  please expand "Introduction" to
explain this common pathophysiology.
2) in Discussion section, please start with explaining results of a previous MR in details, to tie
these results down to the findings of present study.
3) from statistics standpoint, this MS is executed correctly, but the strength of the findings is
relatively weak (one of three models showed significance). Authors should discuss why they are
sure that found true causal connections; why this model correct but not other.
4) Please compare findings with PMID: 39205942 and PMID: 38847662  and explain what is
different and what is new.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
please see comments above, especially concerning the novelty (point 4).
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
this is good quality MS, but may be these findings are already reported (please see novelty
concern)
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03571-7 (2025)

Title: Inflammatory bowel disease increases the risk of pancreatitis: A two-sample bidirectional
mendelian randomization analysis
Version: 2 Date: 29 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This is the repeat review of the manuscript titled "Inflammatory
bowel disease increases the risk of pancreatitis: A two-sample Mendelian randomization
analysis". Using Mendelian Randomization (MR) approach, authors investigated  the genetic
connections between  IBD (as its Crohn' and Ulcerative colitis subtypes taken separately) and
pancreatitis (acute and chronic subtypes), and possible causal connections between these two
sets of inflammatory conditions. MS is interesting, and reads well. Authors have made necessary
improvements, including expanding the connection of their results to previous MR studies,
performing meta-analysis of 2 databases, and explaining the trends observed in applying three
different MR techniques.
From statistics standpoint, this MS is executed correctly. In my opinion, MS is ready for
publishing now.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
MS has much improved and now is ready for publishing
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03588-6 (2025)

Title: Nomogram for predicting early cancer-related death due to recurrence after liver resection
in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B/C: a
multicenter study
Version: 1 Date: 07 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract:  More data about risk factors examined could be presented in methods section Thus
background should be changed accordingly OR and p values for the three significant risk factors
should be presented Last sentence of the results represents a conclusion and could be eliminated
Methods Age limitations should be given Demographic and clinical characteristics should be
presented Any comorbidities excluding patients should be presented in detail Were only patients
categorized as BCLCD because of comorbidities?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03588-6 (2025)

Title: Nomogram for predicting early cancer-related death due to recurrence after liver resection
in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B/C: a
multicenter study
Version: 1 Date: 29 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Tamer A.A.M. Habeeb
Reviewer's report:
I would like to thank the author(s) for the effort exerted in this manuscript. I have some scientific
and structural comments and I hope you accept.please see track changes. there are numerous
grammar errors and I have corrected them, I hope you accept
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03588-6 (2025)

Title: Nomogram for predicting early cancer-related death due to recurrence after liver resection
in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B/C: a
multicenter study
Version: 1 Date: 11 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the authors developed a nomogram model based on the alpha-fetoprotein-tumor
burden score, BCLC stage, and aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase ratio for
the prediction of early cancer-related deaths due to postoperative recurrence by analyzing
the data of 672 patients with stage B/C hepatocellular carcinoma of BCLC. The model
demonstrated good predictive ability and clinical application in both training and validation
cohorts, helping surgeons avoid unnecessary liver resection in treatment decisions. Overall, the
paper is technically sound, and the experimental data largely supports the authors' conclusions.
The author's description of the article's limitations at the end is detailed enough, but I'd still like
to add a few points.
Why choose a training cohort and a validation cohort at a ratio of 6:4. It seems that 70% training
cohort and 30% validation cohort are common choices for cases where the amount of data is
small.
In Discussion I noticed that the author mentioned many interesting studies by other scholars (The
paragraph preceding “Notably, the ERCD …. in previous investigations.”), which is reasonable,
but why not cite them, I think these citations are necessary. This will not only support your
argument but also show the reader that you know in the field.
The author's English needs to be improved, especially when switching between topics. Please
avoid the continuous use of "however", If "however" is used too frequently, it may give the
impression of a single structure and repetitive expressions in the paper, leading to a somewhat
monotonous reading of the article and giving the impression of incoherence or lack of clear
logic. This may affect the overall flow and persuasiveness of the paper.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03588-6 (2025)

Title: Nomogram for predicting early cancer-related death due to recurrence after liver resection
in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B/C: a
multicenter study
Version: 3 Date: 28 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract Abbreviations should be explained in their first appearance in the text Methods
Authors should explain in what way a BCLC HCC stage C could become operable without
any chemotherapy/Immunotherapy and is the fate of extrahepatic metastasis in case of a
limited volume intrahepatic HCC Number of patients belongs in the results section How many
patients had any thrombosis of the portal vein Was postoperative chemotherapy/Immunotherapy
allowed? Had all patients compensating cirrhosis? Were any data on liver stiffness available?
Statistics Power of the study should be calculated
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03588-6 (2025)

Title: Nomogram for predicting early cancer-related death due to recurrence after liver resection
in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B/C: a
multicenter study
Version: 3 Date: 02 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor:
I have completed my review of the manuscript “Nomogram for predicting early cancer-related
death due to recurrence after liver resection in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with Barcelona
Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B/C: a multicenter study”. Based on my review, I am of the
opinion that the authors of this article have answered all my queries and received the suggestions
that I have made, have fulfilled the requirements of your journal, and have demonstrated the
authors' in-depth research in the field. Therefore, I agree that the article is accepted.
Overall, the article is of a certain standard in terms of academic value and contribution and is
worthy of publication. I hope the editorial board will consider my review comments.
I thank the editorial board for the opportunity to review the article.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03588-6 (2025)

Title: Nomogram for predicting early cancer-related death due to recurrence after liver resection
in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B/C: a
multicenter study
Version: 3 Date: 03 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Tamer A.A.M. Habeeb
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for the authors
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03588-6 (2025)

Title: Nomogram for predicting early cancer-related death due to recurrence after liver resection
in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B/C: a
multicenter study
Version: 4 Date: 20 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Changes are done, accepted for publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03588-6 (2025)

Title: Nomogram for predicting early cancer-related death due to recurrence after liver resection
in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B/C: a
multicenter study
Version: 4 Date: 22 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Tamer A.A.M. Habeeb
Reviewer's report:
thanks for the authors
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03582-4 (2025)

Title: Gastrostomy Tube Feeding in Children: A Single-Center Experience
Version: 1 Date: 13 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Riad Rahhal
Reviewer's report:
We thank the authors for this submission. They describe their experience with PEG tube
placement in pediatric population in Switzerland with the hope of filling knowledge gaps related
to that region’s practice and population.
In addition to demographics reported, would recommend adding cohort's race/ethnicity data if
available.
Authors need to clearly define what parameters were used to categorize patients as having
abnormal pH monitoring (what are the references used)
I assume the esogastroduodenal transit study used at this center refers to gastric emptying
scintigraphy (nuclear medicine study). If that is the case, was there any other standardized
imaging requested prior to offering a PEG such as upper GI contrast study to assess for anatomic
concerns (like malrotation, obstruction or other)?
In the abstract, manuscript results and discussion sections, please consistently use the terms
weight Z-score and BMI Z-score rather than weight and BMI
There are a variety of PEG replacement options and processes including pre-procedural, intra-
procedural and post-procedural management pathways used at different centers. It would be
informative to have the authors' protocol and experience specifically on:
• What are the authors’ standard for procedural antimicrobial coverage and duration?
• What is the standard duration from PEG tube placement to first gastrostomy tube switch?
• For device utilization what were the PEG tube sizes (such as 12 French, 14 French or other)
utilized in their series.
• Were PEG placement procedures performed as outpatient or were patients admitted to the
hospital? If admission was standard of care, what was the hospital length of stay before discharge
after routine uncomplicated PEG placement.
Based on the information provided, it seems that PEG placement is the primary gastrostomy
tube type offered at this institution.  Do the authors have data (at least number of patients) who
were evaluated during that same time period and deemed not good candidates for endoscopic
placement and therefore referrals were made to surgery (for surgical G tube placement)?
Lastly, some literature proposed that young children (< 1 year of age) may have higher
complication risk compared to older pediatric patients. What percent of patients were < 1 year
of age and did they experience more complications than the older cohort.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03582-4 (2025)

Title: Gastrostomy Tube Feeding in Children: A Single-Center Experience
Version: 1 Date: 13 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors reports on their experience with PEG placement and the impact of these procedures
on weight gain and oral feeding in patients. Congratulations for this interesting work which
seems well conducted and reports interesting results.
Here are my comments:
- Results section 3.2
"A total of 22 patients (...) showing that pharmacological treatment may be sufficient to treat
symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease.  - I think the last part of the sentence should be
in the Discussion  and not in the Results sections as it provides an interepretation of the data
rather than simply stating results.
Furthermore, I think that it could be useful to have information on the disappearance vs
worsening of the GERD symptoms after PEG placement to better understand if medical
treatment was indeed effective or  not. You stated at the end of this subsection  that "The patients
were screened after PEG insertion for symptoms suggestive of GERD." what are the results fo
this screening?
- Results section 3.3
Please report the number of patients along with percentages.
The first paragraph is a bit  confusing, maybe it could be rephrased?
There is a typo at the beginning  of the second paragraph
- Discussion
I found the section from "Given the variation in the assessment of GERD" to "We also
recommend a later assessment if necessary. " a little repetitive, maybe it could be improved with
some rephrasing?
"Our findings also revealed that older children experienced longer delays between the clinical
indication for PEG and the procedure, particularly for those with neuromuscular disorders.
Growth impairment after cranial radiation can result in diminished adult height (...)". I don't
understand the correlation between the first sentence and the rest of the paragraph. Maybe it was
meant to be at the beginning of the following paragraph on timing?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03582-4 (2025)

Title: Gastrostomy Tube Feeding in Children: A Single-Center Experience
Version: 1 Date: 19 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
I have reviewed this paper. I think that the number of cases is large in your manuscript
which summarizes 82 pediatric PTEG cases. However, the indications, methods, complications,
prognosis, and clinical course related to PTEG are not significantly different from those of other
papers according to PTEG, and I do not find out any new knowledge and important points for
PTEG in children in this paper.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03582-4 (2025)

Title: Gastrostomy Tube Feeding in Children: A Single-Center Experience
Version: 2 Date: 05 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors have done an adequate job of responding to the reviewers' comments I have a couple
of suggests to help with the overall clarity of the manuscript.
Section 3.2 Last paragraph: for clarity consider modifying the statement as long as it reflects
your intent to  “All patients were screened after PEG insertion for symptoms of GERD.  Seven
patients had new GERD symptoms after PEG insertion…”
Section 3.3 Paragraph 3: The sentence “Medical conditions that significantly increase the risk of
broncho-aspiration, such as cerebral palsy, leading to stopping oral food intake.” Needs a little
more information and/or rewording to make it relevant to the paragraph.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03582-4 (2025)

Title: Gastrostomy Tube Feeding in Children: A Single-Center Experience
Version: 2 Date: 07 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Riad Rahhal
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for making the revisions requested. One item to clarify further after adding data on
complications in patients < 1 year of age undergoing PEG placement is to explain what was
meant by "loss of the PEG device" in 1 patient. If this refers to accidental pulling of PEG tube,
then accidental dislodgement would be a more suitable term. Thank you
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03592-w (2025)

Title: Age-period-cohort analysis of gallbladder and biliary diseases epidemiological trends
from 1990 to 2021 and forecasts for 2035: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of
Disease Study 2021
Version: 0 Date: 18 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
Figures: legends need to be legible. Right now they are too small. Please spell out all the
acronyms. A figure needs to be understandable standing alone.
Figure 2: Panels do not match the texts. Please check carefully throughout.
Page 6: what are the assumptions for forcasting/projections?
Page 11: “As with the effects of period, the trend of cohort effects showed declining risk across
incidence and mortality.” Please carefully read through the text again, and make sure the text
reads clearly grammatically.
Please explain “drift” in simple terms.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03592-w (2025)

Title: Age-period-cohort analysis of gallbladder and biliary diseases epidemiological trends
from 1990 to 2021 and forecasts for 2035: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of
Disease Study 2021
Version: 0 Date: 30 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
I congratulate the authors on such a remarkable work.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03592-w (2025)

Title: Age-period-cohort analysis of gallbladder and biliary diseases epidemiological trends
from 1990 to 2021 and forecasts for 2035: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of
Disease Study 2021
Version: 0 Date: 03 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Akram Pourshams
Reviewer's report:
Greetings!
The most important and important fact is that the ASMR and ASDR of GABD decreased from
1990 to 2021. It would be advisable to include the fact at the beginning of your result, particularly
in the abstract, and then proceed to elaborate on the escalating numbers, which are attributed
to the increase in population.
I would like to know what caused the decrease in ASMR and ASDR of GABD as well as in
EAPC in the abstract.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03592-w (2025)

Title: Age-period-cohort analysis of gallbladder and biliary diseases epidemiological trends
from 1990 to 2021 and forecasts for 2035: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of
Disease Study 2021
Version: 1 Date: 23 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
The responses are satisfactory, the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03592-w (2025)

Title: Age-period-cohort analysis of gallbladder and biliary diseases epidemiological trends
from 1990 to 2021 and forecasts for 2035: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of
Disease Study 2021
Version: 1 Date: 25 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Amira A A Othman
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your thorough and detailed responses to the reviewers' comments on
your manuscript titled "Age-period-cohort analysis of Gallbladder and Biliary Diseases
Epidemiological Trends from 1990 to 2021 and Forecasts for 2035: A Systematic Analysis from
the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021". After reviewing your revisions, I am pleased to
inform you All the required amendments have already been made carefully and satisfactorily. I
hope that the research will be presented to science.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03587-7 (2025)

Title: HCV and HBV Genotypes: Vital in the Progression of HCV/ HBV Co-Infection
Version: 3 Date: 01 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
The study is designed to assess the impact of  the prevalence of HBV & HCV co infection and
the impact of the co infection amongst HCV impacted patients in Pakistan > it showed that 12%
of patients were coinfected with HBV. the co infection was more common in females than in
males  and females were at a higher risk of developing infection. The HCV infected patients
frequently developed co infection with HBV genotype D . The viral load comparison indicated
significant replicative dominance of HBV genotype D over HCV  1a , 2a and 3a genotypes  in
HBV-HCV coinfected patients . while the dominance of HCV genotype 3a on HBV genotype B.
The information generated highlights the importance of determining the genotypes in HCV and
HBV coinfection cases .
The authors need to highlight the importance of  the association of HBV genotype D with HCV
infection and they should point out whether HCC patients in Pakistan have a higher association
wit genotype D  as seen in India .
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03587-7 (2025)

Title: HCV and HBV Genotypes: Vital in the Progression of HCV/ HBV Co-Infection
Version: 3 Date: 11 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
My concerns regarding this manuscript are
1- The method of HCV and HBV diagnosis in coinfected patients, should be clarified in
methodology. Whether it is based on HCV and HBV serology or nucleic acid testing
2- The method by which other causes of chronic liver diseases were excluded, should be clarified
in the methodology
3- The explanation of this high frequency (12.5%) of HCV-HBV coinfection should be analyzed
in the discussion
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03587-7 (2025)

Title: HCV and HBV Genotypes: Vital in the Progression of HCV/ HBV Co-Infection
Version: 3 Date: 03 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract Conclusions donot reproduce what hat been presented in the results section There
should be concordance Introduction It should be stressed that usually HCV suppresses HBV
replication and HBV tends to relapse after successful HCV treatment. Moreover that HCV
genotype  D is the most prevalent  in Pakistan ( about 2/3 of patients) Methods Authors should
mention from where patients were recruited and whether they are concecutive Was population
representative of the general Pakistani population? All patients with concurrent liver diseases
were excluded since authors could not tell the cause of liver damage in those cases What
happened in patients with liver steatosis? Especially HCV genotype 3 ( most frequent one in
Pakistan) causes steatosis in the majority of patients Thus what level of steatosis was accepted?
Were there limitations for BMI and waist circumference? Which viruses apart from HIV were
excluded? What about comorbidities and Charlson Comorbidity Index? How often ALT was
measured? What about cases with HBsAg positive and very low HBV-DNA? Is there any
possibility to calculate any liver fibrosis marker? at least FIB-4 or APRI ? Even PT levels?
ALT levels donot tell much about the severity of liver lesion Statistics Multivariated analysis
should be better performed to exclude interferences from other risk factors Chi-square in not
valid for comparisons of more than 2X2 parameters Special chi-square of better ANOVA should
be prefered Results Authors mention that HCV/HBV coinfection in their population was low
Nevertheless 12% is one of the highest described After all any comments belong is the discussion
OR shoud be followed by p-values Only statistical significant factors should be presented in the
text Authors should mention in which occasions HBV dominates over HCV Because usually
HCV is the dominant virus its genotype is sufficient to compare ALT levels HBV-HCV co-
infections  should be mentioned when no virus dominates over the other
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03587-7 (2025)

Title: HCV and HBV Genotypes: Vital in the Progression of HCV/ HBV Co-Infection
Version: 4 Date: 13 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract p-values should be followed OR Conclusions should miror the results Methods Was
lipid profil determined as predeterminant to exclude MASLD?  Were cut offs for MASLD were
used for DM and dyslipidemia utilized?  Was any alcohol consumption accepted in patients
entering the study? Statistics Authors should calculate the power of the study Multivariated
analysis should be better used for risk factors determination
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03587-7 (2025)

Title: HCV and HBV Genotypes: Vital in the Progression of HCV/ HBV Co-Infection
Version: 4 Date: 22 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Haidi Karam-Allah Ramadan
Reviewer's report:
The article addresses the frequency or prevalence of HCV/HBV co-infection and the impact
of HCV/HBV co-infection on the progression of liver damage. Some comments are to be
addressed:
1. In the title: how did the authors assess the impact of genotypes on liver disease progression?
they did not evaluate liver stiffness  or FIB-4 or APRI scores or liver biopsy?
2. In abstract: the authors mentioned that the prevalence of HCV and HBV was done using ALT
assay for confirmation. ALT level does not diagnose viral etiology.
Also,  results on genotypes are  very deficient with no results of viral load.
3. In patients and methods: were the patients DAAs naive or experienced?  did they have
assessment for cirrhosis using ultrasound? please illustrate.
4. What is the type of statistical test used in table 2?
5.  Correlation analysis or logistic regression should be used to confirm the relation between
viral load and viral genotypes rather than Chi square or ANOVA test.
6. In discussion: female patients usually have clearance of HCV infection as you mentioned in
reference 24, 25. How your results showed high prevalence in females?
7. In conclusion: the authors mentioned "The timely detection of viral coinfection could improve
the disease treatment outcomes and enhance the overall survival of the patient", however, in this
study they did not evaluate the treatment outcomes or the survival, so the conclusion is irrelevant
to the aim and methodology of the study.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03587-7 (2025)

Title: HCV and HBV Genotypes: Vital in the Progression of HCV/ HBV Co-Infection
Version: 5 Date: 17 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
changes are satisfactory, can be accepted for publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03590-y (2025)

Title: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography combined with extracorporeal shock
wave lithotripsy for the removal of large gallbladder stones: a pilot study
Version: 1 Date: 12 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Why patients with gallstones with diameter over 1 cm need a gallstone removal Gallstones
were big enough to avoid entering cystic duct? Methods Were patients not opt for surgery
excluded? Did exclusion criteria include any comorbidities?Suspected malignancy should be
futher defined Authors presuppose catheterizasion of the cystic duct and entering gallbladder
in all cases Was it an inclusion criterion? Did ESWL performed during the same session or
another ERCP was performed to clear gallbladder and remove the stent? Was ccholangitis treated
with antibiotics before attempting to perform ERCP or was it performed before inflammation
had subsidised ? What precautions where taken to avoid post-ERCP pancreatitis? Results
When pancrititis happen in 1/6 patients In which ERCP? What happen with the patient who
developed gallstones during follow-up Was he/she on ursodeoxycholic acid treatment initially
Could the stones have passed since there has beed performed a sphincterotomy?  Was there any
corelation between post procedural pancreatitis and syone recurrence?  Pictures taken through
choledochoscope could be provided
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03580-6 (2025)

Title: The Burden of Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Functional Dyspepsia in Poland: A Cross-
Sectional Study from West Pomeranian Voivodship
Version: 2 Date: 12 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Santiago Camacho
Reviewer's report:
This article is a good piece of work that only requires a minor comment as a suggestion. The
results of the odds ratio across the results are confusing, it would be worthwhile to express it in
a table and unite the explanation of each topic in a single subtitle. Reference 16 has errors
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03580-6 (2025)

Title: The Burden of Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Functional Dyspepsia in Poland: A Cross-
Sectional Study from West Pomeranian Voivodship
Version: 2 Date: 25 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thanks  alot for your work.
This is an important study on the epidimiology of IBS and FD in western Poland.
I have some comments:
- how the patients filled the rome criteria (self introduced?)
- In what language the Rome criteria were presented to participants.
- Timeline between the Rome criteria filling and the endoscopy?
- Woud yo please comment and compare your data to Rome gobal study by Ami Sperber et al?
- Addin the discussion a paragraph on the limitations.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03580-6 (2025)

Title: The Burden of Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Functional Dyspepsia in Poland: A Cross-
Sectional Study from West Pomeranian Voivodship
Version: 4 Date: 16 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thanks
You have adequately adreessed my comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03594-8 (2025)

Title: Impact of Pathological Complete Response on Survival in Gastric Cancer After
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis
Version: 0 Date: 15 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Paper title: Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Primarily Benefits Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer
Patients with Pathological Complete Response
Authors: Dr. Yonghe Chen, Dr. Lei Lian, Dr. Junsheng Peng
This is a potentially interesting report which clarified NAC primarily offers survival benefits for
LAGC patients who achieve pCR.  It's a very ordered method and analysis.
However, there are some important issues to be discussed more in order to make this paper more
valuable.  The authors should consider the following questions and answer them adequately.
While the authors mentioned the reason why gastric cancer is less likely to benefit of NAC,
previous studies such as `RESOLVE` have shown that there is a treatment advantage with NAC.
However, in this study, the NAC group had no advantage over the AC group even after
propensity score matching? In other words, this study is aimed at patients who are less likely
to benefit of NAC.
What makes this study different from previous studies? We need to understand precisely as this
is the most important point that prompted this research.
`pCR` is a factor according to the result of treatment. Unfortunately, it is not possible to select
the pCR group before NAC. Were there any pretreatment factors related to tumor regression?
I would like to request additional analysis.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03594-8 (2025)

Title: Impact of Pathological Complete Response on Survival in Gastric Cancer After
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis
Version: 0 Date: 14 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
No - there are major issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
No - manuscript has some fundamental flaw(s)
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: dear authorsI read with interest your study about the role of NACT
in gastric cancer. I prefer to make only major comments, since the study should be extensively
revised before taken into consideration for publication.
- first of all the title is confusing and somewhat misleading. the aim of the study was to compare
interval surgery with surgery followed by ACT. With the propensity score the authors failed
to demonstrate any difference. The only finding is that prognosis is better in patients with
pCR. Therefore authors suggest to select patients for NACT only if pCR could be achieved.
How is possible to know "ex ante" the effect of NACT? it is quite weird to make a similar
recommendation!
- the study has some relevant selection bias. Since it's not a randomized study there are several
differences between the two patients cohorts. PSM could attenuate these differences but the
original bias remains (NACT patients generally have more aggressive and advanced cancer).
The PSM was calculated on several factors not influent on prognosis (laparoscopic surgery) and
did not included important variables as the NACT scheme / ACT scheme.
- since the main outcome is OS it's very important also to provide data on further treatments
(CT, RT, immunotherapy.. ) since the prognosis is highly influenced by all those treatments. It's
most important also to include year of treatment as a variable since several CT regimens were
not available (the study period is very wide, 2008-2021).
- among exclusion criteria there's remaining gastric cancer. in the study cohort there are several
patients with R1/R2 resection. How is it possible? please provide explanations.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
please see my comments above
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03594-8 (2025)

Title: Impact of Pathological Complete Response on Survival in Gastric Cancer After
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 09 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
No - there are major issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
No - manuscript has some fundamental flaw(s)
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: dear authors
thanks for the improvements
however the main problems remained unsolved: the results did not changed at all (you declared
that you add in the PSM calculation the number of cycles but you added only the number of
cycles in the table.
the conclusion are not supported by your data and they do not make sense (you cannot recommed
to select patients for NACT based on the response!)
please, revise the manuscript according to the previous comments.
Focus your analysis only on predictors of response to NACT.
clearly state the limitations of the study
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
please see my comments above
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03594-8 (2025)

Title: Impact of Pathological Complete Response on Survival in Gastric Cancer After
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 14 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
This revised manuscript was concise and well-structured. I hope we accept the paper "Impact
of pathologic complete response on survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in gastric cancer:
a propensity score matching analysis" for publication in BMC Gastroenterology in its current
form.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03594-8 (2025)

Title: Impact of Pathological Complete Response on Survival in Gastric Cancer After
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis
Version: 3 Date: 11 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: thanks for the improvements
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
no further comments
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03593-9 (2025)

Title: Outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage for postoperative
peripancreatic fluid collection with an external drainage-based approach
Version: 3 Date: 18 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Carlos Chavarria
Reviewer's report:
Congratulations to the authors for the study
This is retrospective series of cases during an 8-year period of 14 patients with EUS guided
management of post-surgical peripancreatic liquid collections with external drainage.
The results found are interesting although some other study limitations should be added and
perhaps added to the discussion.
All 14 patients had undergone early drainage. In some cases, patients may not present any
symptoms or may only display mild symptoms. In this scenario, the collections could be
reabsorbed and thus intervention could be avoided.
Why is a nasobiliary drain preferred when the collection is liquid? In collections with solid
components, this method is used to allow wash serum to flow through the drain and prevent
obstruction. However, in this context it seems that it has not been the indication. On the other
hand, nasobiliary catheters are very uncomfortable for patients. For example, in pseudocyst
drainage, internal double pigtail stents have shown effective results and do not have high
migration rates.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03593-9 (2025)

Title: Outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage for postoperative
peripancreatic fluid collection with an external drainage-based approach
Version: 3 Date: 26 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Theodore W. James
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript provides valuable insights into the role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided
transmural drainage (EUS-TD) with external drainage for postoperative peripancreatic fluid
collections (POPFC), addressing an area with limited consensus on optimal stent selection and
intervention timing. The study is well-structured, with clear methodology, defined inclusion/
exclusion criteria, and transparent reporting of technical and clinical outcomes. The discussion
section highlights key considerations, including stent selection, intervention timing, and follow-
up care. However, the retrospective nature and small sample size (14 patients) limit the
generalizability of the findings, and these limitations should be further emphasized in the
discussion, alongside suggestions for future prospective studies.
Several key areas require refinement to enhance the manuscript's robustness and clarity.
The inclusion of secondary outcomes, such as long-term follow-up data on recurrence or
complications, would provide additional clinical value. A more thorough statistical analysis,
including confidence intervals and subgroup comparisons, is needed to strengthen the study's
findings. Additionally, the discussion could benefit from a more detailed comparison of external
drainage outcomes with internal drainage or lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS). Addressing
these aspects would enhance the manuscript's contribution to clinical practice and its relevance
for a broader audience.
Minor revisions are also necessary to improve the manuscript's overall presentation and
readability. The abstract should briefly highlight the study's limitations for balanced reporting.
Figures and tables require consistent labeling, higher resolution, and clear definitions of
abbreviations. The discussion could be expanded to address cost-effectiveness and patient-
reported outcomes, such as quality of life during drainage. Finally, a thorough proofreading
for grammar and language clarity, along with ensuring consistent reference formatting, would
improve the manuscript's polish. With these revisions, the study would be well-positioned for
publication in BMC Gastroenterology.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03593-9 (2025)

Title: Outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage for postoperative
peripancreatic fluid collection with an external drainage-based approach
Version: 4 Date: 04 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Theodore W. James
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed previous comments and have updated their manuscript accordingly.
I agree with accepting this paper for publication.