JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-12-3 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Incidence of non Helicobacter pylori species in patients presenting with
dyspepsia
Version: 1Date:7 July 2011
Reviewer: Mark Whary
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The level of exposure to dogs and cats, particularly wild dogs and cats, is not
well defined and is unlikely to be of sufficient contact to be relevant. The abstract
states that pet contact was minimal so this feature should be down played.
2. Last part of introduction states that study aim was to analyze effects of
coinfection on gastric pathology – minimal gastric pathology data is provided and
nothing is described about this aim in the conclusion of the abstract.
3. Methods – page 7 sequencing was done for products using H felis and
heilmannii primers – was the genus level product (only 400 bp vs 1200bp which
is available) and H pylori-specific products sequenced? The amplification
products are relatively short and could be mis-identified.
4. Table 3 depicts association between Helicobacter species and pets – why not
include H. pylori to demonstrate the validity of the statistical analysis?
5. Percent of males is 66% in abstract and 65% on page 4.
6. Page 7 estimate of sample size of 217 for H heilmanii and H felis – not clear
what this means?
7. Methods page 4 describes pets kept outside of the rooms but within the house
– what does this mean?
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Title should use the term prevalence rather than incidence since prevalence of
a health issue is the number of cases in the population at a given time, whereas
incidence describes the number of cases over time.
2. Second paragraph of Introduction – Coinfection with Helicobacter species – ref
14 is a helminth co-infection model whereas the same lab has published on
co-infections with multiple helicobacter species – so context of message is not
clear.
3. Crowding index and Boring water (a dug well?) are not defined in the Methods.
4. Table 1 – PCR reaction conditions are all the same and can be removed and
put in Methods text.
5. Fist sentence of Introduction – “several” animals underestimates helicobacter
prevalence – it has been found in most types of animals – from birds through
humans.
Discretionary Revisions
1. Should use line numbers for ease of review.
2. Inconsistent use of italics to properly indicate genus and species.
3. References not uniformly formatted.
4. Would not use term of bacilli in last sentence – not clear what type of bacilli
you are referring to.
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, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
No conflicts of interest
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-12-3 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence of non Helicobacter pylori species in patients presenting with
dyspepsia
Version: 3Date:26 August 2011
Reviewer: Mark Whary
Reviewer's report:
Major issues include 1) needs editing for English and organization - redundant
data, paragraphs poorly organized 2) association with pets is questionable - p
value of 0.05 for H. heilmanii infection appears to be a negative association since
most Hh positive patients did not have pet contact. 3) Numbers in Table 3 are
different than reported in text. 4)prior review requests were not adequately
addressed
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-12-2 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Validation of the FIB4 index in a Japanese nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
population
Version: 1Date:15 June 2011
Reviewer: Gary Abrams
Reviewer's report:
Dr Sumida and colleagues performed a nice study comparing multiple
non-invasive mathematical methods for assessing the presence or absence of
advanced fibrosis in NAFLD. The data is well presented and appropriate
limitations are discussed.
Discretionary Revisions- Although the authors mentioned the limitations of liver
biopsy sampling errors, it would be helpful if they provide the length of the
biopsies as well as the number of portal tracts to assess the adequacy of the liver
tissue obtained (most studies would require 20mm and >10 PTs). It would also
be helpful to determine if there were significant differences between the liver
biopsy samples with regards to the lower and upper cut-off values
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-12-2 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Validation of the FIB4 index in a Japanese nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
population
Version: 1Date:30 August 2011
Reviewer: Ancha Baranova
Reviewer's report:
This is a review of the paper “Validation if FIB4 index in a Japanese nonalcoholic
fatty liver disease population” by Yoshio Sumida and co-authors.
This paper validates the performance of noninvasive marker FIB4 (based on
ALT, AST, age and platelet counts) for predicting advanced liver fibrosis in a
Japanese cohort with NAFLD. AUROC for FIB4 index was compared with six
other noninvasive markers. The authors show FIB4 index to be superior
compared to others with a high negative predictive power and FIB4 index can be
established as a relatively inexpensive method correlating with stage of fibrosis in
adult subjects with NAFLD. This study this study was restricted to Japanese
population with NAFLD and the utility of FIB4 index needs to be tested on a wider
population to be established as a predictor for advanced liver fibrosis in adult
subjects with NAFLD.
The FIB4 index is based in ALT and AST values, in addition to age and platelet
count. Studies have reported that not all patients with NAFLD have elevated ALT
and AST values ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2670414/ ).
Authors should discuss the impact of normal liver enzyme levels on utility of FIB4
index to predict advanced fibrosis in such individuals.
Also, all tests used for cross-comparisons were centered around AST, ALT and
platelets e.g. APRI index. It will be more valuable if some panel based on soluble
serum markers was included into the comparison. (at least in discussion section).
Another major point is prevalence of NAFLD in patients with HCV (
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14499789 ). I understood that these patients
were excluded from current study. However, authors should address if FIB4
index performs differently in such cohorts in the discussion.
Minor comments
1. Rephrase: “demonstrated that performance characteristics for the diagnosis of
advanced fibrosis in NAFLD are better than those of other similar panels that do
not require additional testing, and comparable to several others that do require
additional tests.”
2. Introduction: In this study, we therefore aimed ……predicting ‘significant
fibrosis’. Did the authors mean ‘advanced fibrosis’?
3. Inconsistent definition - Methods: Diagnosis of NAFLD was based on the
following criteria (1) liver biopsy showing steatosis in at least 5% hepatocytes.
However, under histological evaluation fatty liver was defined as the presence of
> 5% steatosis (is it 5% of the area?).
4. need to indicate what software (vendor) was employed for regression 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-12-2 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Validation of the FIB4 index in a Japanese nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
population
Version: 3Date:6 November 2011
Reviewer: Ancha Baranova
Reviewer's report:
good job. now manuscript is in good shape!
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-12-1 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Low incidence of positive smooth muscle antibody in Chinese patients with
autoimmune hepatitis and primary biliary cirrhosis overlap syndrome
Version: 1Date:3 October 2011
Reviewer: Marina Silveira
Reviewer's report:
Drs. Zhao and Han present an interesting report on the prevelance and clinical
characteristics of patients with autoimmune hepatitis and primary biliary cirrhosis.
The report is concise and well written.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1) Add to table one relevant information with regard to diagnostic criteria of
PBC/AIH overlap syndrome (IgG levels and number of patients in whom those
were available; proportion of patients with diagnostic biopsy features and number
of patients in whom those were available).
Discretionary Revisions:
1) Would suggest including clinical information on treatment and clinical
outcomes in this cohort of patients followed over the course of 5 years, which
would definitely add significance to the work.
3) Recommend a paragraph describing limitations of the study, including
retrospective in nature, and incomplete data relevant to diagnostic criteria (only
89/146 had immunoglobulin assay and 58/146 had liver biopsies; these are two
of three needed tests for the diagnostic criteria applied - Chazouilleres 1998).
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-12-1 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Low incidence of positive smooth muscle antibody in Chinese patients with
autoimmune hepatitis and primary biliary cirrhosis overlap syndrome
Version: 1Date:14 October 2011
Reviewer: daniela cabibi
Reviewer's report:
The authors studied 146 patients woth overlap syndrome AIH-CBP and found
low incidence of SMA among them.The study is quite important for clinical and
epidemiological informations about Chinese population on this relatively rare and
sometimes under-diagnosed syndrome, the diagnosis of which is still
controversal
Major Compulsory Revisions
1) The criteria of Chazouilleres ( Hepatology 2007) have been reported to be
used for the diagnosis of "ovelap syndrome". At least 2/3 criteria of AIH and at
least 2/3 criteria of CBP are necessary fo AIH-CCBP overlap diagnosis
Nevertheless,in this study, only 58/146 patients underwent liver biopsy. So the
histological criteria are often missing. Moreover, the mean AST- ALT values
reported in this study (2-3XN)are lower than the ones reported as significant for
AIH by Chazouilleres ( about 5XN).
The authors should clarify how many and which criteria were satisfied by each
case to make the diagnosis of " overlap syndrome" (they could report these data
in a table)
2) the authors should make clear the importance , if any, of low SMA incidence
Minor essential revisions
1)The authors should report that in the references n° 22 and 23, tissutal IgM
plasma cells have been studied.
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-12-1 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Low incidence of positive smooth muscle antibody and high incidence of
IgM alone elevation in Chinese patients with autoimmune hepatitis and primary
biliary cirrhosis overlap syndrome: a retrospective study
Version: 2Date:25 November 2011
Reviewer: daniela cabibi
Reviewer's report:
I have no further comments. I'm satisfied by the author's replay.
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-12-1 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Low incidence of positive smooth muscle antibody and high incidence of
IgM alone elevation in Chinese patients with autoimmune hepatitis and primary
biliary cirrhosis overlap syndrome: a retrospective study
Version: 2Date:29 November 2011
Reviewer: Marina Silveira
Reviewer's report:
the authors have satisfactorily addressed the main issues raised by initial review,
benefiting the quality and importance of the manuscript.
i'd suggest the authors use the term "isolated IgM elevation" rather than "IgM
alone elevation" throughout the manuscript.
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-12-176 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Small intestinal transit in patients with liver cirrhosis and portal
hypertension
Version: 1Date:17 October 2012
Reviewer: barbera roberta
Reviewer's report:
Maior Compulsory Revisions:
I read with interest the paper " small intestinal transit in patients with liver
cirrhosis and portal hypertension: a descriptive stydy" by S Karlsen and
coworkers.
The study evaluated gastrointestinal transit in cirrhotic patients, focusing in
particular on small bowel motility, using a novel methodology already applied by
the same Authors and for the same aim in other groups of patients (SSP, CF).
The hypothesis of a slower small bowel transit causing bacterial overgrowth and
subsequentely increased peritoneal bacterial translocation was not supported by
the results. The transit in fact in those patients was faster than in healthy
controls.
The research paper is well designed but the results are chaotically expressed. A
Table summarizing the motility data (gastric emptying small bowel and colonic
transit) ) in controls and patients is missing.
Moreover, the Figures are not explicatives of the results but are examples of the
novel method applied. In the discussion part, being results obtained not expected
by study hypothesis, very little is commendted on these conflicting data.
Figure 1 : not necessary becuase already extensively reported in previous recent
papers.
Figure 2: the legenda is not well definied (Patients or controls? fasting or after
meals? and wich meals, breakfasty or lunch?)
Figure 3: it is not clear form the text why the data are shown after 2 hours and
not at the end of the study.
figure 4 : it is not clear if this is an example of a patient or healthy control trace.
And all together it is not easy to folllow through colours.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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-12-176 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Small intestinal transit in patients with liver cirrhosis and portal
hypertension
Version: 1Date:22 October 2012
Reviewer: Oreste PIeramico
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. The authors should include in Materials and Methods (patients selection) if
they have assessed the presence of small bacterial overgrowth in the group of
patients with liver cirrhosis since it may have an impact on results. If assessed,
they should state by means of which test it was investigated.
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-12-159 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Serological parameters in the spectrum of coeliac disease: beyond
standard antibody testing - a cohort study
Version: 1Date:2 July 2012
Reviewer: Severin Daum
Reviewer's report:
Serological parameters in the spectrum of coeliac disease: beyond standard
antibody testing - a cohort study
Major Remarks
The authors present interesting retrospective data on serological markers for
differentiation of several types of CD. These data are highly interesting and
clinically relevant as often invasive methods have to be applicated with limited
success in the differentiation of RCD I versus RCD II and EATL.
Some more intense discussion of the data could bring more value to the readers
of BMC.
Minor Remarks
The results data should be described more careful: in case both types of RCD
are meant, this should be mentioned. Actually, results data are described in the
DISCUSSION section, which should be placed in the RESULTS section. Data
should be interpreted in the DISCUSSION, not repeated.
The authors should speculate about using several combined markers in
differentiation of CD vs. RCD and EATL.
Table 2 showing the detailed parameters of all CD groups could be substituted
(or put in the ammendment), if the p-values in case of significance would be
depicted in figure 1 and 2 (eg showing a bar between box plots with significant
differences).
Some grammatical mistakes should be corrected, eg crypt _ hyperplasia on page
5 line 13.
Abbreviation of active celiac disease (aCD) should be introduced in the text.
As I am not a statistician, I would beg you to get the article checked by a
statistician.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest 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-12-159 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Serological parameters in the spectrum of coeliac disease: beyond
standard antibody testing - a cohort study
Version: 1Date:4 July 2012
Reviewer: Ilma Korponay-Szabo
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript from G. Tack and colleagues describes inflammatory parameter
values measured from the serum of patients with active and treated celiac
disease as well as of those with an intestinal inflammation refractory to
gluten-exclusion. The paper is well written and provides interesting insight into
the spectrum of CD.
Major comments:
1. I suggest to change the title and other relevant parts from ’serological’
parameters to ’serum’ parameters. Serology is traditionally used in connection
with celiac disease to mean serum antibody testing which is here not the case.
2. Please provide normal serum values in non-celiac subjects for each
parameter. This could be also shown as a normal range in the figures. Do these
parameters show any age-dependency in normal people (children-adults-elderly)
? This would be important to exclude as the RCD/EATL groups were significantly
older than the non-complicated CD groups.
3. It is a question whether RCDII or EATL represent just a higher level of
inflammation compared to CD or other inflammatory conditions. I suggest to
include a comparison group with other gastrointestinal inflammatory disorders
like H.pylori infections, Whipple disease, diverticulitis or other lymphomas to gain
more insight into the diagnostic value. Further, relevant data on Crohn’s disease
from the literature may be more discussed in the discussion.
Minor Essential Revisions
4. Page 4. Please introduce the tTGA, EMA and DGPA abbreviations and
antibody tests properly.
5. Statistics: for parameters with p=0.00 please add exact values (e.g. 10-5 etc.)
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-12-159 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Serum parameters in the spectrum of coeliac disease: beyond standard
antibody testing - a cohort study
Version: 2Date:28 September 2012
Reviewer: Severin Daum
Reviewer's report:
Ref. Tack et al.
The revisions have been made and the manuscript has reached good quality.
However, some revisions have not been done:
In case of changing the title (serologic to serum), one should also change the
terms in the whole text.
I still can not find the explanation of ACD.
Inspite of the single unmet points, the manuscript has reached a good quality.
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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230x-12-159 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Serum parameters in the spectrum of coeliac disease: beyond standard
antibody testing - a cohort study
Version: 2Date:4 October 2012
Reviewer: Ilma Korponay-Szabo
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary suggestion about "serological" parameters wording within the text.
Maybe some could be replaced by 'immunological' parameters, but I let this issue
to the technical editor
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-12-81 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Instructive role of gut-derived factors on ES cells differentiation.
Version: 2Date:2 November 2010
Reviewer: Miyako Takaki
Reviewer's report:
General comments:
This study shows that some factor secreted from LM-MP preparations of the gut
can induce differentiation of ES cells into specific neuronal phenotypes in vitro
system. However, in vivo system, grafted ES-NS failed to acquire a distinct
neuronal phenotype at least 1 week following transplantation. From this result,
the authors suggested the presence of local inhibitory influences that prevents
ES-NS differentiation. This reviewer has an experience that the gut-like organ
differentiated from ES cells transplanted into the host gut failed to survive. The
reason for this seems to be deficiency of blood vessels. Therefore, the reason for
the present failure to acquire a distinct neuronal phenotype does not seem to be
simply the presence of local inhibitory influences.
Specific comments:
1) In introduction, the authors described that “Furthermore, several studies have
also shown ES differentiation into neural crest cells, ------- (23-25).” The authors
did not mention about Takaki et al’s study where in vitro formation of enteric
neural network structure from neural crest cells by BDNF is performed in a
gut-like organ differentiated from mouse embryonic stem cells. (Stem Cells 24:
1414-1422, 2006)
2) P13, L7: --with LM-MP (Fig 4D-I) and Fig 5A-D).>>>>> This reviewer could not
find Fig 4D-I.
3) P13, L19-20: Remarkably, expression of the glial marker GFAP was not
observed in either group (LM-MP and control) by all analysis performed (data not
shown). >>> If so, how to maintain neural cells without glial cells?
4) In Figure 7A, DiI-labeled cells are neurons or not? Because a failure on the
expression of the neuronal markers and non-neuronal markers GFAP and alpha
SMA by the engrafted ES-NS was revealed (Fig 7 B-D).
5) Figure 4: BetaIII-tubulin is used as a marker for immature and mature neurons.
Which are immature neurons and mature neurons in Figure 4C?
6) In Figure 3 E and F, DAPI-positive nuclei exist in the smooth muscle cells.
What are DAPI-positive nuclei in Figure 3A, B, C, D?
7) Figure 6: ES-NS with LM-MP expressed alpha SMA mRNA, but did not alpha
SMA protein. How to explain this ?
8) Figure 7: Please explain abbreviations used in this figure.
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-12-81 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation of ES-derived neural progenitors as a potential source for cell
replacement therapy in the gut.
Version: 4Date:19 July 2011
Reviewer: Miyako Takaki
Reviewer's report:
The authors fully revised according to this reviewer's comments.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230x-12-81 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation of ES-derived neural progenitors as a potential source for cell
replacement therapy in the gut.
Version: 4Date:27 July 2011
Reviewer: maria giuliana Giuliana vannucchi
Reviewer's report:
The paper maintains its potential interesting although the in vivo procedure is
spoilt by the stem cell chosen. The authors have made several changes in the
writing in regard to the content, also added some few experiments, the quality of
the images, after the authors have made order on them, is good. Finally the
authors have adjusted the discussion avoiding too much speculation.
Hopefully, as soon as the authors will get much money and personnel, they
continue their research with the aim to follow the suggestions that I (and likely the
other referees) recommended (such as to investigate their cells in different
experimental conditions under the TEM, eventually asking for collaborations).
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-12-52 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome (CVS): is there a difference based on onset;
pediatric vs. adult?
Version: 1Date:19 January 2012
Reviewer: Tuba Esfandyari
Reviewer's report:
1. This is an interesting study to compare the adult and pediatric patients with
cyclic vomiting syndrome. Since, different genetic backgrounds have been
proposed to be associated with difference in age of onset.
2. Major Compulsory Revision
Authors have done a great job comparing the pediatric vs. adult groups with CVS
in regard to demographics and disease characteristics. 3. More detailed
description of comparison between pediatric vs. adult patients with CVS in regard
to treatment and response is extremely important. Due to small number of
pediatric patients with CVS (n=29), the number of pediatric patients with CVS
might not be large enough in some categories to make the final conclusion of “no
differences in response to treatment between pediatric vs. adult patients with
CVS”.
4. Major Compulsory Revision
Authors discuss about the limitations of this study in detail. This study is one of
the largest studies characterizing adult vs. pediatric patients with CVS, but still
has relatively small number of pediatric patients. Considering the retrospective
nature of the study and missing documented data, this might be a significant
limiting factor in making clinical judgment on response to treatment. Details on
the number of collected data in treatment and response to treatment in pediatric
vs. adult patients with CVS is of great importance.
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-12-52 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome (CVS): is there a difference based on onset;
pediatric vs. adult?
Version: 2Date:23 March 2012
Reviewer: David Fleisher
Reviewer's report:
MS 7951950636510912 on Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome, pediatric and adult onset
is a valuable contribution to the literature on this important topic. It is worthy of
publication in its present revised form in any first class medical journal.
I recommend it without reservation. I have no conflict of interest of any kind with
the authors.
David R. Fleisher, MD
Assoc. Professor, Dept. of Child Health
U. of Missouri SOM, Columbia, MO
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-12-52 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome (CVS): is there a difference based on onset;
pediatric vs. adult?
Version: 2Date:9 April 2012
Reviewer: Tuba Esfandyari
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for allowing me to review this paper.
This is an interesting papaer with clinical relevance to daily practice. After
reviewing, the authors answers to my and other reviewer's comments, I find this
papaer acceptable.
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 do not have any other financial or non-financial competing interests in relation to
this paper.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-146 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Roles of HSP70 in cytoprotection of gastric epithelial cells exposed to
H.pylori
Version: 1Date:29 September 2011
Reviewer: Marcis Leja
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript entitled „Roles of HSP70 in cytoprotection of gastric epithelial
cells exposed to H.pylori” by W.Liu and colleagues addresses the correlation
between HSP70 and H.pylori associated injury of gastric epithelial cells as well
as the possibilities to employ extracellular HSP70 to compensate for the deficit of
endogenous HSP70 depletion in the quality of a therapeutic intervention.
The objectives are clearly defined, the methods are appropriately described, and
the obtained data are sound. The obtained results are clearly reported. The
conclusions are adequate in the text, yet have to be adjusted in the abstract. The
authors refer to 33 references that are chosen adequately. The writing is
acceptable.
At the same time I would like to point out few imperfections that however do not
deteriorate the overall value of the work (Discretionary Revisions):
1) The title of the manuscript does not clearly state the essence of the work, and
has to be reconsidered;
2) The conclusion included to the abstract does not clearly state the results of the
work, and has to be adjusted according to the conclusions in the text (actually,
the current abstract conclusion repeats the message from the Background
section);
3) The last sentence of the Background section actually refers to Discussion
section, and has to be either reformulated or withdrawn.
The minor comments include:
1) When referring to the authors of the references (throughout the text) “.. et al.”
has to be added whenever there is more than one author (and that is the case
with the cited papers).
2) The current double full-stops following the affiliation of the first author (Title
page) have to be changed to a single one.
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-11-145 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Gastric emptying and small intestinal transit time and motility assessed by
a magnet tracking system
Version: 1Date:14 June 2011
Reviewer: Phil Dinning
Reviewer's report:
Comments to Authors.
This paper represents another stage in the use and validation of the magnetic
pill. In this instance it has been validated against “Pillcam” for the measurement
of gastric emptying and small bowel transit. Specific comments and questions
are listed below in the sections required by the journal:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. On page 3 in the opening paragraph of the introduction you state that
manometry has “unreliable measurement in non-sphincteric regions”. What is
your justification for this comment? Do you have any evidence to suggest that it
is unreliable?
2. In the data analysis section there are a host of techniques described. I would
like some information on how they were validated. For example how did you
decide on the definitions for the frequency data? Has the fast Fourier transform
analysis been validated? What does weight=0 and weight=1 mean?
3. In the results the frequency data has been presented collectively for the entire
small bowel. Did frequencies differ between the proximal and distal small bowel?
What was the frequency of contraction in the ascending colon or caecum? You
must have those data if you can confirm the ileocaecal transit. Is there a
significant drop in the frequency of contraction between the distal ileum and the
proximal colon.
4. It is mentioned in both the introduction and discussion that Pillcam may effect
contractions and transit? No references are provided in either instance. What
evidence do you have for this statement?
5. There is mention in the discussion that it was anticipated that the MTS-1 would
be able to measure MMC phase III activity. Why was this not mentioned in the
introduction as a potential aim?
6. Overall, while the technique correlates well with Pillcam, the paper fails to
provide any clear reason for why this technique would provide clinical or research
benefit over any of the other “transit’ pills. As pointed out in the paper SmartPill
already measures transit in the stomach, small bowel and colon and it is
completely ambulatory. The magnet pill requires someone to sit still for up to 8
hrs. It is mentioned in the discussion that MTS-1 can define segmental colonic
transit times but that isn’t the point of this paper. Can you detail any advantage in
using your technique over Smartpill? One of the real benefits seems to be the
ability to track the exact location of the pill.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. There are 7 figs and only 5 figure legends.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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-11-145 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Gastric emptying and small intestinal transit time and motility assessed by
a magnet tracking system
Version: 1Date:30 June 2011
Reviewer: Werner Weitschies
Reviewer's report:
It is an interesing idea to compare pill cam transit data with magnetic marker
monitoring data. However the scientific quality of the manuscript needs to be
improved .
Major Comments:
1) How can the authors prove that the magnets that were ingested before the
meal passed the small intestine with the meal? At least the gastric emptying
times and the dimentions of the swallowed magnet have to be presented and
carefully discussed (see minor comments). In the submitted version this essential
and critical point is completely ignored.
2) What is the scientific basis for the three motility categories chosen: Fast
movements, slow movements, very slow movements?
3) How can a progeression in cm be calculated when the subjects were not
permanently measured?
4) How can the authors be sure that the calculated progression is movement of
the magnet in the intestine and not movement of the intestines with the pill inside
5) Was one baseline measruement used for the complete recording?
7) The included data are uncomplete. The tables are not supplementary material
but esential (they are also cited in the mansucript).
8) A description of the magnet is completely missing (dimensions, material,
magnetic moment) but essential (see major comments).
9) What data are presented in Table 1? Fasting or fed conditions? All transit data
need be listed.
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 have no ccompeting interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-145 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Gastric emptying and small intestinal transit time and motility assessed by
a magnet tracking system
Version: 2Date:16 September 2011
Reviewer: Phil Dinning
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed all of the concerns I had raised. The additions to the
methods and a section in the discussion detailing advantages of their technique
over the current commercially available SmartPill, significantly improve the paper.
• Major Compulsory Revisions:
These have been addressed
• Discretionary Revisions
I just have one final comment regarding the use of MTS-1 in children (Page 12).
MTS-1 does not require radiation and is therefore of potential benefit in children.
While I agree with this, I wonder how many children could swallow the pill and sit
still for unto 8 hours. Do you have any data on the use of this pill in children?
Seems a little unlikely that it would be suitable tool.
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 can answer no to all of the above.
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-145 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Gastric emptying and small intestinal transit time and motility assessed by
a magnet tracking system
Version: 2Date:26 September 2011
Reviewer: Andreas Steingoetter
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for providing raw data in the tables.
Minor essential revisions:
1) The introduction is still difficult to read and follow. It appears to the reviewer
that the wording has not much improved. The reviewer recommends to put some
effort in rephrasing the important parts of the Introduction. Simply listing facts in
simple paragraphs may not be considered appropriate.
2) The wording in the revised parts should be improved. Watch out for typos.
3) Please provide correct units to all numbers listed. Also slope and time have
units.
4) Figures all still of poor design
5) Corrections and adaptations are required for the figure legends
a) Figure 1 and Figure 2 have the same title, but have different information
content
b) Figure 3 is still unclear to the reviewer. The title appears not appropriate. No
data comparison is provided. Why arbitrary unit on y-axis? Should be position or
angle?! The reviewer doesn't recognize anything on the provide images.
c) Figure 4, please provide a unit for time, i.e. 9:45 h.
d) Figure 5, the title should be somewhat like progression over time in the fasting
state
e)
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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-145 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Gastric emptying and small intestinal transit time and motility assessed by
a magnet tracking system
Version: 2Date:7 October 2011
Reviewer: Werner Weitschies
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
The revision gives clarification on the lacking information of the first version.
However, the information provided by the authors raises questions on major
aspects of their data interpretation and/or conclusions.
1) The "small" magnet was by no means small (6x15 mm, 1.6 g!). Such a large
magnet will not pass the small intestine with the meal (as the authors agree in
their revision). Accordingly, it is imposible to draw conclusion on postprandial
small contraction frequencies or transit velocities. In the current version, this is
still a major aspect of the mansucript.
2) The authors state in their revision that is it is impossible to differentiate
movements of the intestine from movements or the magnet inside the intestine
by using MTS-1 data as performed by the authors. The reviewer agrees. But why
do the author only comment on this without drawing the necessary
consequences with rewpect to their data calculation and presentation? To the
understanding of the reviewer one might argue, that the observed short bursts of
transport are very likely to reflect intraluminal transport. However, calulations of
mean transport velocities are impossible as long as a correct measure of the
length of the small intestine is missing. distance.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-144 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:In vivo and ex vivo effects of propofol on myocardial performance in rats
with obstructive jaundice
Version: 6Date:23 June 2011
Reviewer: renyu liu
Reviewer's report:
Comments:
The authors extensively investigated the effects of propofol on myocardial
performance in both in vivo and in vitro. They found that there is no significant
effect on cardiac contractility from low or intermediate dose of propofol in
obstructive jaundice with normal cardiac function. However, 0.9 mg/kg/min of
propofol produce significantly greater cardiac depression in jaundiced rat. Similar
finding is observed ex-vivo experiment.
The experiments are well designed and the findings are interesting and
reasonable.
Major Concerns about this paper
1. The authors should seek help for professional English editing before
considering re-submit it again
2. The authors should put more effort to discuss the clinical significance for their
findings. The conclusion should be modified to define well what they have
investigated. For example: propofol appears to be a safe alternative anesthetics
agent in patients with obstructive jaundice and normal cardiac function at low and
intermediate doses.
Minor issues:
1. Why only male rats were chosen. Does sex hormone plays any role?
2. Table 1 can be omitted by simply describing them in the text.
3. Is there any potential correlation between level of TBIL or ALT and effects of
propofol?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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-11-144 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:In vivo and ex vivo effects of propofol on myocardial performance in rats
with obstructive jaundice
Version: 6Date:12 July 2011
Reviewer: Angela Woodiwiss
Reviewer's report:
Major COmpulsory Revisions
The data are indeed interesting and of clinical relevance. However I have some
reservations with regards to the statistical analysis and the translation of the
doses into clinical doses.
Regarding the statisitical analysis, the authors have assessed percentage
changes in order to account for differences in baseline data. However a more
robust analysis is to perform a two-way ANOVA (intervention, group) with
adjustments for baseline data.
With regards to the doses, the authors in their methods mention that the dose
range encompased the ED50; however they don't mention what the ED50 is nor
translate their ex vivo doses into approximate in vivo doses.
Regarding the in vivo data, the author show a decrease in HR whcih is simila rto
previosu data but yet an increase in LVESP and +dP/dtmax. Where there
differences in carotid blood pressures between the groups? The authors mention
in the discussion that blood pressure was normal, but no values are given in the
manuscript. These must be provided.
The construction of pressure-volume curves in systole and in diastole would
greatly enhance the validity and interpretation of the ex vivo data, especially if
this data is aimed to guide the safety of use of propofol at mild to intermediate
doses in obstructive jaundice.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declear that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-144 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:In vivo and ex vivo effects of propofol on myocardial performance in rats
with obstructive jaundice
Version: 7Date:8 October 2011
Reviewer: renyu liu
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed my concerns.
I appreciate the author's effort and have no further comments
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-144 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:In vivo and ex vivo effects of propofol on myocardial performance in rats
with obstructive jaundice
Version: 7Date:31 October 2011
Reviewer: Angela Woodiwiss
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
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, 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-11-143 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Comparison of percutaneous radiofrequency thermal ablation and surgical
resection for small hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 2Date:18 September 2011
Reviewer: Martin Bodingbauer
Reviewer's report:
- Minor Essential Revisions
But there are still some interesting points:
It would be of interest to clarify and to show the discussion process and the
centre´s policy which patient should be treated by PRFA or SR. Are there
limitations for patients with SR and PRFA?
It is difficult to conclude after a retrospective trial that PRFA can bet he first
choice for the treatment of single and small HCC, especially after the publication
of Huang J in Ann Surg. 2010
Figures:
Use years instead of months for overall and recurrence free survival
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.