JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-52 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Predictors Of Gastrointestinal Lesions On Endoscopy In Iron Deficiency
Anemia Without Gastrointestinal Symptoms
Version: 1Date:14 January 2008
Reviewer: Giorgio Bedogni
Reviewer's report:
I reviewed this paper as BMC statistical referee. I was blinded to the reviews
made by the other referees.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. As study design is concerned (abstract and elsewhere), please write â##This
is a cross-sectional study performed on a convenience sample of consecutive
subjectsâ##.
2. Please explain why you dichotomized continuous predictors at the given
cut-points. Categorization of a continuous variable involves loss of information so
that it is important that you justify the choice of these cut-points.
3. Statistical significance at univariable analysis was the criterion by which
potential predictors were entered into multivariable models. (This is not stated but
can be inferred from the data.) This is a common approach but has *many*
disadvantages, especially when there are many predictors (12) with few positive
outcomes (50 bleeding lesions). A multivariable selection of predictors using
bootstrap would improve substantially your conclusions (Steyerberg, E. W.,
Harrell, F. E., Borsboom, G. J., Eijkemans, M. J., Vergouwe, Y., & Habbema, J.
D. (2001). Internal validation of predictive models: efficiency of some procedures
for logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol, 54(8), 774-781.)
4. Specify whether age is dichotomized in Tables 4 and 6 as it is in Tables 3 and
5.
5. Please discuss the fact that the 95%CI for some predictors (e.g. iron) are
compatible with modest to very high effects. (That it is, the precision of the
estimate is low).
6. You say that your models may be useful to â##predictâ## bleeding lesions.
However, you do not give data to evaluate their diagnostic accuracy. If the
emphasis is on the prediction of bleeding lesions (and not on the identification of
risk factors), you should report accuracy data. The simplest thing to do is to
report the non-parametric area of a ROC curve.
Minor Essential Revisions
7. Please quote the literature showing that the 3 methods by which you
diagnosed anemia are equivalent for this purpose.
8. Results: lumphoma is lymphoma.
9. Tables 4 and 6: write â##oddsâ## instead of â##ODDâ##.
Discretionary Revisions
10. Since you evaluated both patients with and without GI symptoms, wouldnâ##t
it be interesting to compare predictors in these 2 subgroups ?
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the 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: 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-8-52 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Predictors Of Gastrointestinal Lesions On Endoscopy In Iron Deficiency
Anemia Without Gastrointestinal Symptoms
Version: 2Date:24 April 2008
Reviewer: Giorgio Bedogni
Reviewer's report:
MINOR REVISIONS
1. If the Authors wish that their model be used to predict the risk of bleeding
lesions, they should give also the regression coefficients (betas) and their
standard errors. The ORs are e^betas but for doing the prediction one needs the
betas. Because the Authors choose to give the ROC curves, they should also
give the betas of the underlying multivariable model.
2. It is important that the Authors write that their model must be cross-validated in
external samples before it can be employed by others.
3. As I suggested before, it is important that the Authors comment on the fact that
the 95%CI of some predictors are wide. For instance, at multivariable analysis, a
FOB+ has a lower 95%CI risk of bleeding lesions equal to 3.9 which is clinically
relevant independently from the fact that the 95% limits are wide (up to 67.3).
The same does not apply to MCV, whose 95%CI range from 1.2 to nearly 10
times more.
4. The Authors have re-performed multivariable logistic regression analysis
adding clinically meaningful predictors (i.e. those already known from the
literature) to their list of predictors identified at univariable analysis.
This is clearly better than the previous analysis based only on univariable
significance but there is the clear disadvantage of no internal cross-validation of
the prediction model, something that the bootstrap would have afforded easily.
5. The Authors write that they used the t-test and the Fisher's exact test for
univariable analysis. However, the give univariable OR in the tables so I suppose
that the p-value in these tables are not that coming from the t-test or the Fisher's
exact test (although they are likely to be similar).
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-8-52 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Predictors Of Gastrointestinal Lesions On Endoscopy In Iron Deficiency
Anemia Without Gastrointestinal Symptoms
Version: 2Date:28 April 2008
Reviewer: bruno annibale
Reviewer's report:
The revised version of the paper now accomplished the previuos criticisms
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-8-52 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Predictors Of Gastrointestinal Lesions On Endoscopy In Iron Deficiency
Anemia Without Gastrointestinal Symptoms
Version: 2Date:3 May 2008
Reviewer: Patrick G Brady
Reviewer's report:
No additional revisions needed.
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-8-52 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Predictors Of Gastrointestinal Lesions On Endoscopy In Iron Deficiency
Anemia Without Gastrointestinal Symptoms
Version: 2Date:5 May 2008
Reviewer: Alistair W Stewart
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
In table 5 the %’s of Hx of weight loss are wrong. I pointed this out in my previous
review of this paper and it has not changed.
In Tables 3 and 5 there is confusion with the odds ratios and, possibly, with some
percentages. It is important that the odds ratios are attributed to a group with the
other group as the reference. The table heading, or a footnote, must specify
which group is being used as the reference group. The appearance is that, in
Table 3, that the ‘No endoscopic lesions identified’ group is the reference group.
The OR for age ge 55 however uses the other group as the reference group. In
table 5 it appears that the wrong reference group has been used in the serum
iron and ferritin calculations of the OR.
Again in Tables 3 and 5 there is the unusual situation where a measure has a
greater mean in one group compared to the other and yet the proportion less
than a fixed value is also greater. This occurs in Table 3 ferritin and Table 5
serum iron and ferritin. It is possible for this situation to occur but it is unlikely.
Could the authors please check this carefully.
Why has a 10 µg/dl been used in table 3 and a cut off of 5 µg/dl been used in
Table 5 for serum iron and the reverse been used for ferritin? This has changed
since the previous submission.
Minor Essential Revisions
In the text it stated that MCV #60fl (OR 514.8, 95% CI 3.6 – 60.7) which is clearly
a typographical error.
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-8-52 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Predictors Of Gastrointestinal Lesions On Endoscopy In Iron Deficiency
Anemia Without Gastrointestinal Symptoms
Version: 3Date:3 June 2008
Reviewer: Giorgio Bedogni
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
None
Minor Essential Revisions
None
Discretionary Revisions
None
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, 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-8-52 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Predictors Of Gastrointestinal Lesions On Endoscopy In Iron Deficiency
Anemia Without Gastrointestinal Symptoms
Version: 3Date:3 June 2008
Reviewer: Alistair W Stewart
Reviewer's report:
The authors have now answered the queries I made in my previous review.
Minor Essential Revisions
A new minor matter has arisen. The columns in Tables 3 and 5 are in a different
order and could potentially confuse a reader. The P value column should be last
in both tables.
The odds ratio for the continuous variable age should be given to at least 2
decimal places in both tables 3 and 5 (otherwise it looks like it is outside the
confidence interval).
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-8-51 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Scintigraphic evaluation of oesophageal motility during adjuvant
radiotherapy to the mediastinum
Version: 1Date:4 June 2008
Reviewer: Roberto O Dantas
Reviewer's report:
Major revisions.
This paper need some revisions:
1.The scintigraphic method measure transit and not motility. In the conclusion
present in the abstract the reference is about "oesophageal transit". The did not
see abnormal peristaltic response.
2. What is the unit of ER40? In table 3 and text there were no units of ER40s and
of MTT.
3. The dysphagia and odynophagia of the patients may be consequence of
motility alterations but also of mucosa sensitivity. This possibility should be
present in discussion.
4. Why use three phases during the scintigraphic examination? What is the utility
of the last phase?
5. What was the scoring method of the scintigraphic examination?
6. What are the explanations for results that showed more residues in upright
position than in supine position, more residues with liquid bolus than semi-solids
bolus?
7. The numbers showee in results ar very close to each other. Althoug there are
differences between T2 and T0 it is small. The unit of residuess (counts or
%)should be in the text.
Minor revisions
1. It is better to wright 40 seconds than 40".
2. There is 3 figures legends in the text, but the number of figures is 5. There is
no legend for figures 4 and 5.
3. IT is important to have the units of measurements.
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 interest.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-51 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Scintigraphic evaluation of oesophageal transit during adjuvant
radiotherapy to the mediastinum
Version: 3Date:3 October 2008
Reviewer: Roberto O Dantas
Reviewer's report:
The authors made the modifications in the text that we suggested. There is an
improvement in yhe presentation of the paper. It can be published.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interest.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-51 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Scintigraphic evaluation of oesophageal transit during adjuvant
radiotherapy to the mediastinum
Version: 3Date:16 October 2008
Reviewer: Jeri Logemann
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions: none
Minor essential revisions: There are many grammatical errors throughout this
manuscript largely related to translation. These must be made before the
manuscript is published.
Discretionary revisions: none
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-8-50 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Reduced diversity and increased virulence-gene carriage in intestinal
enterobacteria of coeliac children
Version: 1Date:15 June 2008
Reviewer: Christel Neut
Reviewer's report:
The presented work consists of research of virulence factors of E. coli isolates
from children suffering from coeliac disease. Virulent strains can be implicated in
the physiopathological conditions.
Different points need to be clarified (major compulsory revisions):
-The methods used enables the authors to outnumber enterobacteria, why no
quantitative results are shown? A higher amount of enterobacteria may exist in
CD children which would further increase the role of E. coli in pathological
conditions.
-Five colonies are subcultured for each sample. How is the diversity of
distribution of the virulence genes in these five subcultures. Are identical clones
present frequently. How are they treated further? The table 1 mentionned 17
clones in active CD patients. How can we relate this number to the 50 colonies
subcultured from 10 samples. When more than 3 clones can be identified per
sample, the number of subcultured colonies should be increased.
-Why the number of clones belonging the the B2 and D group is identical to the A
and B1 identical in the three groups (table 1)?
-The results in the figures 1 and 2 should be expressed in number of clones and
not percentages. So we can be able to better compare the diversity.
Only after clarification of the methodology, the discussion can be evaluated.
Minor revisions: spelling mistakes need to be removed.
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-8-50 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Reduced diversity and increased virulence-gene carriage in intestinal
enterobacteria of coeliac children
Version: 1Date:2 July 2008
Reviewer: Denis Krause
Reviewer's report:
Major
1. This is a very interesting manuscript and is one of the first that describe the
virulence attributes of E. coli in relation to celiac disease.
2. Can the authors expand as to why they see a difference in the B2 and D
depending on whether the disease is active or not?
3. Like many other forms of chronic GI inflammatory diseases (eg. IBD) E. coli
increases in number. Therefore, could the authors speculate as to whether the E.
coli they observed is a cause or consequence of inflammation? For example, in
IBD there is an increase in E. coli in the B2 and D groups.
Minor
1. Figure 1 is difficult to read. The shading is a bit confusing particularly “healthy”.
It may be better to just do the pie graph without the 2D effect as the shading is
not the same in the depth perspective.
Discretionary
1. Authors designate celiac disease as CD, which is confusing to the general GI
reader because that is the designation of Crohn’s disease.
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-8-50 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Reduced diversity and increased virulence-gene carriage in intestinal
enterobacteria of coeliac children
Version: 3Date:23 September 2008
Reviewer: Denis Krause
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is now acceptable for publication.
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-8-50 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Reduced diversity and increased virulence-gene carriage in intestinal
enterobacteria of coeliac children
Version: 3Date:1 October 2008
Reviewer: Christel Neut
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is improved after revision. Some minor points need
consideration. In the introduction it should be clearly stated the previous results
of the same research group are already published. It should also be stated that in
the same individual, only one clone is usually predominant (as mentioned in the
author's response).
I agree that the analysis concerns a group of patients, but if only one clone is
analyzed from one patient and five from the others, the result for the group is not
homogenous, but this can be attenuated by the statement that usually only one
clone predominates in each individual.
Some spelling errors are still present. Page 7 the Aeromonas species isolated is
named caviae (I do not know if it likes caviar). Page 10, the medium used for
isolation is MacConkey agar.
The first sentence of the conclusion should be: This study has demonstrated
changes in Enterobacteriaceae (in the manuscript a "c" is lacking) diversity,
changes in E. coli phylogenetic groups and increases in.....
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-49 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:The Helicobacter pylori duodenal ulcer promoting gene, dupA in China
Version: 3Date:4 July 2008
Reviewer: Hans-Jürg Monstein
Reviewer's report:
The study conducted by Zhang Z et al is welll performed, appropriate methods
have been used and the conclusions drawn are well supported by the
experiments carried out. I have some more general points to be commented:
The authors have used PCR amplification assays targeting several genes
considered to be important in disease outcome (Table 1 and 4). I am surprised to
see that the vaca-i (intermediate) region was not included in the study. According
to a recent study, the vacA-i-region is an important factor of vacA-associated
pathogenicity (Rhread JL et al., Gastroenterology 2007;133:926-936).
As pointed out by the authors, there results are not in good agreement with the
study of Argent et al. Has the way of performing the analysis such as using
different primers and DNA isolated from cultured bacteria rather than DNA
isolated from biopsy specimens any general impact on the result outcome? Have
the authors carried out any in biopsy studies and compared the results (Scanning
the PubMed database offers several publications showing that H. pylori genes
can be analysed omitting culture procedures)?
Since all the primersequences are listed in table 4 they can be omitted in the
Materials section para DNA extraction and PCR amplification.
The reference list is not formated according to the requirement of BMC
Gastroenterology
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-49 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:The Helicobacter pylori duodenal ulcer promoting gene, dupA in China
Version: 4Date:21 September 2008
Reviewer: Hans-Jürg Monstein
Reviewer's report:
The authotrs have made adequate changes in the manuscript. in my opinion, the
MS can be accepted in its present form.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-49 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:The Helicobacter pylori duodenal ulcer promoting gene, dupA in China
Version: 4Date:22 September 2008
Reviewer: Dulciene M Queiroz
Reviewer's report:
Since the work adds information to literature about the prevalence of dupA in
China, I think the results must be published. My main concern is about the
several spelling and grammatical errors that must be checked before publishing.
Major Compulsory Revisions
Methods:
The information of what was considered dupA-positive and -negative must be
mentioned in the Methods section, not in the results.
Minor Essential Revisions
Results:
The first sentence of the topic “Association of dupA with histological findings” still
does not make sense “The present of dupA on degree of … were compared …” ?
Discussion:
The sentence “The disagreement with the study of Argent may contribute to
geographical variation…” does not make sense.
Please, check throughout the text spelling and concordance errors.
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-8-48 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Estradiol deficiency in men with Crohn's disease is not associated with
reduced bone mineral density
Version: 1Date:6 August 2008
Reviewer: Ebbe Langholz
Reviewer's report:
From the literature it seems that low estrogen levels in men result in higher bone
turnover and greater bone loss over time.
The objective of the present study was to assess if hormonal deficiencies are
frequent among male Crohn´s disease patients and are to be considered as risk
factors for bone loss.
An altered hormone status was found but there was no clear interrelation to bone
density and turnover. However, steroid use was clearly associated with
osteoporosis and osteopenia
- Major Compulsory Revisions
1)
The question that arises when reading the manuscript is: Could the low E2 levels
be considered as a surrogate marker for steroid treatment since steroid treatment
could influence the E2 level and should the results be considered as confounding
due to steroid treatment ?.
This will need to be discussed.
I would suggest a Table comparing three different groups
Current steroid users +E2 levels
Previous steroid users + E2 levels
Never steroid user + E2 levels
2)
Another possibility could be that the disease activity could account for the low E2
levels in patients.
Have the authors considered the possibility of constructing a correlation plot
between E2 and CDAI and not only as a group comparison of values of E2 < 21
and >24 pg/ml?
- Minor Essential Revisions
All results should be given as median and range, since none of the data are
distributed according a normal distribution.
For example Age. Results are presented as median +SD and range. I think that
the SD should be omitted and results should simply be expressed as median and
interpercentile range. The use of SD is confusing.
Usually 95 % of observations can be described by mean +/- 2SD which in this
case would indicate that patients are between 10.2 years and 59.8 years, which
then is in conflict with inclusion criteria.
- Discretionary Revisions
None
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-48 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Estradiol deficiency in men with Crohn's disease is not associated with
reduced bone mineral density
Version: 1Date:12 August 2008
Reviewer: Herbert Tilg
Reviewer's report:
Congratulations on a fine manuscript. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this paper. I
do have a few suggestions which may improve this work.
Minor Comments:
There is a quite high percentage of current corticosteroid users (35.7%); this is
surprising looking at the duration of disease: please also include number of
patients receiving azathioprine and/or anti-TNF drugs.
Abstract: explain ICTP; include number of controls
Introduction/Discussion: also include a few sentences on the potential role of
inflammatory mediators in the pathogenesis of bone loss. Any correlations of sex
hormones and bone metabolism parameters with CRP levels?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-48 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Bones and Crohn's: Estradiol deficiency in men with Crohn's disease is not
associated with reduced bone mineral density
Version: 2Date:9 October 2008
Reviewer: Ebbe Langholz
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
None.
The authors have done extensive work and analysis in order to elucidate
possible confounding factors and have responded satisfactorially and
incorporated the conclusions of the analyses in the discussion section.
- Minor Essential Revisions
None. The authors have responded satisfactorially to my suggestion of minor
revisions
The author can be trusted to make these. For example, missing labels on figures,
the wrong use of a term, spelling mistakes.
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-8-47 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Bile composition in Alagille Syndrome and PFIC patients having Partial
External Biliary Diversion
Version: 1Date:19 May 2008
Reviewer: Juerg Reichen
Reviewer's report:
Emerick and colleagues report on biliary composition before and after partial
external biliary diversion (PEBD) in patients with Alagille's syndrome (AS) or
progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis (PFIC) either due to mutations in the
FIC1 gene or the BSEP gene. Response to extrabiliary diversion was seen in 3/3
AS patients, 3/4 PFIC patients with the FIC1 mutation and 1/3 with the BSEP
mutation.
MAJOR COMPULSORY REVISIONS:
1. Obviously, all patients were treated with ursodeoxycholic acid at the time of
PEBD; this should be stated and the dose given in the methods section.
2. Details on bile collection are scant; apparently, a 3 - 4 h specimen was
collected. It should be stated whether patients were fasted during collection since
this could influence bile composition.
3. The authors use pruritis throughout the manuscript. Unfortunately, pruritis and
pruritus are used interchangeably in English. In my opinion this is wrong: in Latin
there is a word pruritus which describes itching. Please, use the correct spelling -
pruritus is not an inflammatory condition which pruritis would seem to imply.
4. As indicated by the standard deviations, there was a wide range of most
values. With this small sample size, nothing can be said about normality of
distribution. Therefore, indication of median and ranges would be more
appropriate than mean±standard deviation (which implies normal distribution). It
follows, that analysis of variance by Kruskal-Wallis testing would be preferable to
parametric ANOVA.
5. In figure 3, individual values would be more informative than the box-plots.
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-8-47 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Bile composition in Alagille Syndrome and PFIC patients having Partial
External Biliary Diversion
Version: 2Date:6 August 2008
Reviewer: Juerg Reichen
Reviewer's report:
the authors have satisfactorily adressed all my concerns. thank you for putting up
with a cranky old man who still insists on good latin usage!
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 have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-47 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Bile composition in Alagille Syndrome and PFIC patients having Partial
External Biliary Diversion
Version: 2Date:15 August 2008
Reviewer: Ralf Kubitz
Reviewer's report:
There are no more major concerns.
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-8-46 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Etiology of liver cirrhosis does not influence the severity of hepatic
encephalopathy: a cross-sectional study
Version: 1Date:22 August 2008
Reviewer: Giovanni Tarantino
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? YES
2. Are the methods appropriate YES
and well described? See below
3. Are the data sound? YES
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? YES
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data? YES
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? YES
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished? YES
Minor Essential Revisions
The Authors are advised:
1) To change the term “severity” with the term “presence/prevalence” in the title.
2) To start with a general sentence such as “There are scarce and conflicting
data on which type of liver cirrhosis could more frequently induce HE” in the
Background of the Abstract.
3) To eliminate the sentence “diabetes mellitus has been …………..hepatic
encephalopathy” in the Background of the Abstract
4) To put forward the last sentence of the Conclusion in the Abstract “Cirrhosis
etiology…..” and afterward the first one “Cognitive impairment…….”
5) To change “sort” in “short” at page 7 in “Assessment of health………of life” of
Methods.
6) To change “more” in “less” at page 10 in “HE in alcoholic vs cholestasis” of
Results.
- Discretionary Revisions
1)To add, please, in exclusion criteria, when dealing with the patients’ selection,
why cryptogenic cirrhotic patients were excluded. This is the reason for which so
few NASH patients were enrolled.
Anyway, the NASH patients were not taken in consideration also because there
would be a statistical interference due to the presence of insulin resistance.
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-8-46 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Etiology of liver cirrhosis does not influence the severity of hepatic
encephalopathy: a cross-sectional study
Version: 1Date:24 August 2008
Reviewer: Bader Faiyaz Zuberi
Reviewer's report:
MAJOR COMPULSARY REVISIONS
1. Title should be revised to be more representative of study (e.g., correlation of
etiology with HE and QOL in cirrhosis)
2. Second paragraph in the section introduction regarding diabetes is unrelated
to the topic.
3. Proper methods are not used to study the objectives, impact of etiology on
prevalence could not be studied in a cross-sectional design neither the effects of
etiology on QOL could be studied in a cross-sectional design. Both could be
studied either in a cohort or a case-control design. However correlation could be
studied in a cross-sectional design. Changes in either are advised accordingly.
4. Confounders were not defined, age, gender, severity of liver disease, diabetes
and hypertension should rather be analyzed/adjusted as confounders.
5. Sample size estimation was not done; neither there is statement about the
power of the study. It needs to be stated that the study had enough power to
detect the differences.
6. For analysis patients were grouped into hepatocellular and cholestatic groups.
Grouping many causes into two groups has reduced the degrees of freedom (df)
of the study and has converted the study into comparison between these two
groups rather than the etiology which was the objective of the study. In my
opinion analysis should have been done for each individual etiology if not then
title and methods should be modified accordingly.
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-8-46 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Etiology of liver cirrhosis does not influence the severity of hepatic
encephalopathy: a cross-sectional study
Version: 1Date:26 August 2008
Reviewer: Stephen Harrison
Reviewer's report:
Kalaitzakis et al present an interesting study of 156 Swedish cirrhotic patients
with the aim of investigating the etiology of cirrhosis on the prevalence of hepatic
encephalopathy as well as any differences in quality of life and rates of diabetes.
Strengths of this study include the relatively large number of patients and good
study design with comprehensive data available to calculate MELD and C-P
scores as well as cognitive function testing with psychometric tests (number
connection) and HE scoring on a scale of 0-4.
The finding of diabetes mellitus being more common in patients with
hepatocellular rather than cholestatic cirrhosis support existing data and does not
represent a novel finding. However, the negative finding that hepatic
encephalopathy was equally found in all causes of cirrhosis as well as the
multivariate analysis that related cognitive impairment to age, liver disease
severity, and diabetes are all novel & clinically relevant findings.
Weaknesses of this paper include single center cross sectional nature of the trial
as well as lack of neurophysiologic tools to assess for HE (which is mentioned
appropriately by the authors). Also, on page #10, the statement diabetes mellitus
was "more common" should be changed to less common in the group of
cholestatic cirrhosis. The conclusion paragraph also has a small typographical
error in the first sentence.
In summary, a well conducted & interesting study with some clinically relevant
conclusions.
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-8-46 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Type and etiology of liver cirrhosis are not related to the presence of
hepatic encephalopathy or health-related quality of life: a cross-sectional study
Version: 2Date:21 September 2008
Reviewer: Bader Faiyaz Zuberi
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed all issues pointed by me.
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.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-45 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Determinants of female sexual function in inflammatory bowel disease. A
survey based cross-sectional analysis
Version: 1Date:5 March 2008
Reviewer: Rachel Pauls
Reviewer's report:
I enjoyed this paper and felt overall it was a sound research study assessing an
interesting topic. There is a good sample size and statistical analysis seems
appropriate.
I have some minor revisions:
Is it possible to compare demographic and clinical information between non
responders and responders to determine if the groups are different?
Abstract section- results: what do you mean by sexually active to a relevant
extent? I would prefer a more appropriate term or quantification of sexual activity.
-conclusion section:
I prefer to state that 'smoking may be associated with lubrication problems', or 'in
this study, smoking was associated with lubrication problems'.
Introduction: paragraph 2 line 2 add “in” after sexual activity.
Methods: define major comorbidities that were excluded
Is the HADS subscale of >10 a validated cutoff for depression? If so, reference
this.
I am not sure about you stating that your questionnaire is validated since this is
not yet published, but to state that there was an attempt to establish validity,
including test-retest, etc.
It is unfortunate that arousal scores had to be eliminated.
Results:
Sexual function- exploratory analysis: please define what is high, moderate levels
of sexual activity. Is this a number cutoff or what?
Did you correct for multiple testing given the number of exploratory analyses
seen here? What was your hypothesis for the paper overall?
The term is “vaginismus”- not vaginism (seen a few times through the text).
I appreciate the thoughtful discussion.
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-45 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Determinants of female sexual function in inflammatory bowel disease. A
survey based cross-sectional analysis
Version: 1Date:7 March 2008
Reviewer: Ja Ku
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions
This article presented the female sexual function in inflammatory bowel disease.
Because of the shortage of scientifically based knowledge about female sexual
function, this study seems to be worthwhile. Although the contents including
statistical analysis are concise and clear, I would like to address some comments
for this article below.
1. Studies to assess sexual function and dysfunction are always difficult. I am
afraid that several important factors for female sexual function (BMI, hormonal
status, menopausal status) were missed in this study.
2. It is also important to know whether the partner is of good health or whether
partner is interested in sex.
3. When the statistical significance are made, it is necessary to show whether the
significance are genuine or purely by chance. Please clarify this issue in the
discussion section.
What next?: Accept without revision
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-8-45 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Determinants of female sexual function in inflammatory bowel disease. A
survey based cross-sectional analysis
Version: 1Date:8 March 2008
Reviewer: ferda F verit
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript is satisfactory and well designed. I think it can be published in
this form.
What next?: Accept without revision
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-45 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Determinants of female sexual function in inflammatory bowel disease. A
survey based cross-sectional analysis
Version: 2Date:5 August 2008
Reviewer: Sunanda Kane
Reviewer's report:
This is now acceptable for publication
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 I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-45 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Determinants of female sexual function in inflammatory bowel disease. A
survey based cross-sectional analysis
Version: 2Date:6 August 2008
Reviewer: Rachel Pauls
Reviewer's report:
I feel that the new manuscript addresses the revisions as much as possible.
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-8-45 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Determinants of female sexual function in inflammatory bowel disease. A
survey based cross-sectional analysis
Version: 2Date:20 August 2008
Reviewer: Robert Maunder
Reviewer's report:
This paper is much improved, I think, and ready for publication.
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-8-43 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:The clinical overlap between functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel
syndrome according to Rome III criteria
Version: 2Date:9 August 2008
Reviewer: Ami D. Sperber
Reviewer's report:
I have no further comments to the authors other than that the paper needs further
English language editing.
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-8-43 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:The clinical overlap between functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel
syndrome according to Rome III criteria
Version: 2Date:18 August 2008
Reviewer: Giorgio Bedogni
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
None
Minor Essential Revisions
P2. Abstract: You may wish to write “the only significant predictor” instead of
“significant predictor”.
P4. Giving the needed sample size is enough. I suggest to avoid reporting the
formula because it requires explanation of symbols, e.g u and sin (it appears that
PDF processing has corrupted some characters). Just a question: if 385 subjects
were enough why did you enroll about 8 times more subject ? This has no ethical
implications for the present study so that this is not a weakness but just much
more work for researchers.
P6. Please, specify that the (excellent) ICC applies to the summary score. Give
also the number of patients on whom the validation study was performed.
P9 Please, write dichotomous variable instead of binomial variable, since the
latter is a statistical distribution.
P12 Please, delete “the enrollment was some biased”. The description as
limitation is enough.
P12 Just a question: why do you think a larger sample is needed ? I agree with
the need of a confirmatory multi-center study but, provided that the prevalence of
the outcome is not extremely low in the other centers, the sample size should not
be very high (see point 4).
Tables 3 and 4: please, specify that these are multivariable models in the legend
(use the term multivariate if you prefer).
Discretionary Revisions
None
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-8-42 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Influence of Ketotifen, Cromolyn Sodium, and Compound 48/80 on the
survival rates after intestinal ischemia reperfusion injury in rats
Version: 1Date:13 March 2008
Reviewer: Igor Sukhotnik
Reviewer's report:
In the present study, the authors evaluate the effect of mast cell stabilizer , H2
blocker or mast cell degranulator on intestinal recovery and survival rate after
intestinal ischemia-reperfusion in a rat model.
Major concerns:
1. A limitation of this study is that it is more illustrative than quantitative. Effect of
described factors on intestinal recovery as well as on lung histology was only
illustrative. The intestinal mucosal parameters (like mucosal weight, mucosal
DNA and protein content, villus height, crypt depth, enterocyte proliferation,
enterocyte apoptosis etc) were not measured. Most of the pictures do not provide
any important information and should be omitted.
2. In my opinion, the paper suffers from insufficient data to fully examine the
hypothesis or to draw conclusions. The conclusion that IR and treatment with CS
and kotifen affect liver is based on evaluation of ALT and AST as well as their
effect on myocard is based on evaluation of LDH and CK. This is not enough.
3. It is very difficult to explain a discrepancy between unchanged intestinal injury
score and 50% mortality rate after 75 min of ischemia.
Minor concerns
Abstract
1. This is well-written.
Introduction
This section is generally well-written with logical development. A few changes
suggested.
1. "Cordeiro and his colleagues" change to "Cordeiro and colleagues"
2. The statement: "The effects of administration of mast cell…. on IIRI…" is
unclear. Do the authors mean on intestinal recovery following IIRI or in
preventing damage caused by IIRI?
Methods
1. Study design should be concentrated in one place. The statement that 48 rats
are divided into IV groups is described in one section, the other statement about
120 rats that were divided into 5 groups are described in the other section.
2. Provide please reference for Chiu's method.
Discussion
The Discussion is a little rambling. Nevertheless, the overall message of the
paper is important although the manuscript has insufficient data to fully draw the
final conclusions.
1. Statement that intestinal mucosa is one of the best recovered organs in 24
hours after IIRI is doubtful. The recovery requires usually 48-72 hours.
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
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