JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03257-0 (2024)

Title: Predictive value of preoperative CT enhancement rate and CT perfusion parameters in
colorectal cancer
Version: 1 Date: 12 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Your manuscript was organized to show that predictive value of preoperative CT enhancement
rate and CT perfusion parameters in colorectal cancer. however it's not enough to be accepted
to this journal.
Major revise
1. Is there any consideration of the possibility that the contrast agent trend may be affected by
the different dominant vessels depending on the anatomical location of the primary colorectal
cancer site?
2. The contrast dose is fixed at 65 ml. However, it is known that CT values in contrast-enhanced
CT may vary depending on body weight, and the contrast agent dosage may be adjusted
depending on body weight. Is there any discussion on this point?
3. Page 10, line 14: “it can determine tumor malignancy and whether metastasis
happened easily.”Although the correlations between CT perfusion parameters and MVD or
tumor markers were indicated, the prognosis of patients in this study was not indicated.
Therefore, the direct relation between CT perfusion parameters and the prognosis is unclear,
and the impact of study seems to be a little weak in clinical course. Tumor markers can also be
evaluated less invasively.
4. Please describe future perspective more. CT perfusion is not a commonly-used preoperative
evaluation method. Importance of assessment of tumor angiogenesis before operation is unclear
in this paper.
5. Furthermore, detailed characteristics of the tumors in this study were not shown such as the
TNM stage, size, location, and pathological findings, which could affect tumor angiogenesis
and prognosis. This may make it difficult for readers to understand the content.
6. I think it is difficult to accurately identify the location of the tumor on CT images, especially
small or benign lesion. Were there any methods or criteria to select patients or lesions?
Minor revise
1. Page 1, line 13: Is this study retrospective?
2. Page 1, line 13; page 2, line 39; page 4, line 33: Is the MVD cut-off value of 35/mm2 the
median or the mean?
3. Page1 Line 23#time to park # time to peak
4. Page2 Line 24#tumour # tumor
5. Page 2, line 22; page 4, line 25: Abbreviations of VEGF and TFF3 are duplicated.
6. Page 3 Inclusion criteria (1): What is the reason for including only symptomatic patients in
the criteria?
7. Page4 Line 6#Premeability # Permeability
8. Page4 Line 32#fileds # fields
9. Page 5, line 8: Tabe 3 # Table 4
10. Page9 Line 11#neovascularisation # neovascularization
11. Page9 Line 11#tumour # tumor
12. Page 9, line 16: Is the reference 9 correct? In the reference 9, neither CT perfusion nor the
prognosis after chemotherapy were mentioned.
13. Page10 Line 10#MDV # MVD
14. Page10 Line 10#angiogensis # angiogenesis
15. Page11 Line 29#analysed # analyzed
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03257-0 (2024)

Title: Predictive value of preoperative CT enhancement rate and CT perfusion parameters in
colorectal cancer
Version: 1 Date: 27 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The manuscript has limited novelty. Role of MVD and blood
markers in colorectal cancer is already well established, CT perfusion is also a long standing
imaging modality with supporting literature on its role to evaluate tumor aggressiveness. Authors
have compiled the results very nicely and has followed the good standard of practice with
statistical analysis. The number of patients also to be noted is very low.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The manuscript has clear objective to evaluate the role of CTP parameters (surrogate
markers and quantitative markers) for aggressiveness of colorectal cancer. However, there are
methodological issues that need clarity. What algorithm was used for CTP quantitative analysis,
PS is permeability measure which is a two compartment model parameter, whereas MTT is a
single compartment model parameter. Authors have attempted to create models using various
perfusion parameters showing AUC of 0.9 characterizing high vs low density group; whereas
blood biomarkers has also shown similar values in characterization. Authors must consider
evaluating a model, NCCT+blood biomarker, NCCT can pick up colorectal lesion and high
blood markers have high sensitivity for characterizing. Low specificity of blood biomarkers will
be reduced by a NCCT by identification of lesion. This model could be easy to implement and
have no high dose CT as well contrast injection requirement.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Authors have not studied the metastatic potential of cancer with respect to MVD or perfusion
parameters, this a discussion on this correlation is speculative. I suggest author be objective in
discussion based on results presented in this study. Authors must also discuss the high dose of
CT exposed to patients for perfusion study, its effects and effects of Iodine contrast agent use,
its limitation in patients with compromised kidney functions.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03257-0 (2024)

Title: Predictive value of preoperative CT enhancement rate and CT perfusion parameters in
colorectal cancer
Version: 3 Date: 30 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have reasonably addressed the concerns in the revision
with corresponding changes in the manuscript. Overall, the revised manuscript is good.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
It would be nice to include representative figures from the group for high and low MVD,
histopathological slide images, and color plots for perfusion CT parameters.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03266-z (2024)

Title: Inside stent placement is suitable for preoperative biliary drainage in patients with
perihilar cholangiocarcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 09 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors reported the efficacy of IS to prevent preoperative cholangitis or other factors
in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, compared to the conventional stent (ENBD).
Although the n number was small, it showed a statistically significant difference and the
usefulness was well conveyed.
Comments are as follows:
Major
1. Prognosis such as OS, RFS, DFS, etc. in the IS and CS groups should be presented.
2. I understand that there is a difference in preoperative hospital stay and cost, but why is
there a difference in the postoperative period or cost? There was no difference in postoperative
complications. Please present your discussion, including appropriate references.
3. The main concern of this study is that there have been multiple reports in the past that IS was
superior. There is no indication of this study's superiority or novelty over other reports.
4. Please compile a table of papers comparing IS and CS to date and do a literature review. Then,
please summarize the problems of IS and CS.
5. The purpose of the study in Background is to compare the usefulness of CS and IS, but the
overall tone of the paper involves NAC. There is a slight dissociation between the objective and
the results/conclusions, and the focus is not clear. If the focus is on the usefulness of IS in NAC,
the paper should be written only in NAC cases.
Minor
1. In the ethics, the authors described “In this retrospective study, the Ethics Committee approved
that informed consent for each patient was not required”. Is this replaced by an opt-out? If so,
please describe.
2. NAC for hilar cholangiocarcinoma has not been approved in Japan, and if it is being done,
it is a clinical trial.
3. Please mention that it is registered in UMIN or other registry and the registration number.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03266-z (2024)

Title: Inside stent placement is suitable for preoperative biliary drainage in patients with
perihilar cholangiocarcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 01 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting paper related to the Inside stent placement for preoperative biliary drainage
in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Reiko et al. concluded that  the use of IS has the
potential to benefit not only the patient but also the healthcare system. However, there are some
defects stated below:
1. What does LP-EBS mean?
2. How to define the "borderline resectable cancer", and "locally advanced cancer”?
3. Writing Clarity and Structure: The overall writing style is unclear and lacks coherence.
The manuscript requires substantial editing and restructuring to improve its readability and
organization. The authors should consider revising the manuscript to ensure a logical flow of
ideas and clear presentation of results.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03266-z (2024)

Title: Inside stent placement is suitable for preoperative biliary drainage in patients with
perihilar cholangiocarcinoma
Version: 5 Date: 04 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author,
Thank you very much for your thorough and insightful responses to the peer review comments.
Your effort in addressing the concerns and suggestions raised is truly commendable. It is evident
from your responses that a great deal of thought and work has gone into refining your manuscript,
and the improvements have significantly enhanced the quality and impact of your work.
Best regards
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03226-7 (2024)

Title: CLINICAL AND HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION VARIABLES CAN PREDICT 90-
DAY HOSPITAL RE-ADMISSION IN ADULTS WITH CROHN’S DISEASE FOR POINT
OF CARE RISK EVALUATION
Version: 0 Date: 12 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors present their work on the development of a model to predict 90 day readmissions
for patients with Crohn's disease to a large hospital system in Toronto.
The strengths of the study include the authors ability to capture re-hospitalizations in Ontario.
They also have granular data regarding the patients that a claims database would not uncover.
The paper is well written and concise.
My major suggestions would be as follows:
- the model itself is not apparent.  What are the coefficients for each variable?  I believe the
cutpoint for the equation is presented but the model is not presented for the reader to do a
calculation.
- did the authors consider creating a simple model, ie: +2 points for CD hospitalization, -2 for
established GI visit, etc which would allow for an easy calculation of risk?  creating a model
which can be used on the fly can be improve the chance of seeing this in practice.
- looking at all the predictors on supplement table 1, I noted that there were not typical lab
measures of nutritional status, other than TPN use.  since WBC and HB were available were
albumin or CRP also available?
- what statistical software was used ?
minor point:
- line 210: extra word "met ONE all study".
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03226-7 (2024)

Title: CLINICAL AND HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION VARIABLES CAN PREDICT 90-
DAY HOSPITAL RE-ADMISSION IN ADULTS WITH CROHN’S DISEASE FOR POINT
OF CARE RISK EVALUATION
Version: 1 Date: 10 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
I do not have further comments to add after reviewing the authors reply.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03226-7 (2024)

Title: CLINICAL AND HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION VARIABLES CAN PREDICT 90-
DAY HOSPITAL RE-ADMISSION IN ADULTS WITH CROHN’S DISEASE FOR POINT
OF CARE RISK EVALUATION
Version: 1 Date: 13 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate the authors efforts to address our minor concerns. I have no other major concerns
and feel that this manuscript if appropriate in its edited form.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03261-4 (2024)

Title: Proton pump inhibitor therapy after transcatheter angiography in refractory nonvariceal
acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding patients#a cohort study
Version: 0 Date: 09 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the Author:
This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of high-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) with
the standard regimen in reducing the rebleeding rate and mortality in patients with refractory
nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) after transcatheter angiography (TA).
These findings suggest that high-dose PPI treatment after TA was not superior to the standard-
dose regimen in reducing the 30-day all-cause mortality and rebleeding rate in refractory
NVUGIB patients, regardless of embolization. The results were consistent even after excluding
patients with cancer using a propensity score matching analysis.
Methods
1. This manuscript would benefit from a clearer definition of 'refractory gastrointestinal
bleeding.’ Is this term intended to encompass endoscopic treatment-resistant cases?
2. Elaboration of the criteria for employing transcatheter angiography in refractory NVUGIB
cases is needed for better understanding.
3. An explanation of the selection between high and standard PPI doses in this retrospective
study would clarify the methodology.
4. A detailed description of medication history, particularly regarding the recent use of PPIs,
would strengthen the reliability of the study.
5. The retrospective nature of this study warrants a comprehensive description of the treatment
selection process and medication criteria at your institution for patients with NVUGIB.
6. Specifying the criteria for chronic kidney disease, including the proportion of hemodialysis
patients, is crucial because of its potential impact on the results.
Results
1. The details of antithrombotic drugs, particularly the distinction between warfarin and DOACs,
needs to be addressed.
2. Data on antiplatelet agents is crucial.
3. Information regarding the prevalence of non-refractory NVUGIB and the success rates of
endoscopic hemostasis during the study period would provide valuable information.
4. Clarification of PPI use prior to TA and any associated thromboembolic events during the
study would be beneficial.
5. More information on patients' history of PPI use and the time from admission to TA would
add depth to the study.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03261-4 (2024)

Title: Proton pump inhibitor therapy after transcatheter angiography in refractory nonvariceal
acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding patients#a cohort study
Version: 0 Date: 18 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
A n article entitled " Proton pump inhibitor therapy after transcatheter angiography in refractory
nonvariceal acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding patients#a cohort study" by  Xue Xiao et al.
showed a role of PPI therapy for the patients with upper GI bleeding.
This article was well written, but I have some comments/ questions as the following.
1) Why the authors collected 30-day all cause mortality for primary endpoint?  I think it is better
for rebleeding rate as primary endpoint .
2) The authors divided the patents into High dose PPI group and standard PPI dose group.
The authors should clarify the reason for dividing them into two groups. Did it depend on the
prescribing physician's preference? Randomly divided?
3) I would suggest that the authors add the reason for the recurrent bleeding. Recurrent bleeding
occurred in the same lesion after embolism? or occurred other lesion of GI tract?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03261-4 (2024)

Title: Proton pump inhibitor therapy after transcatheter angiography in refractory nonvariceal
acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding patients#a cohort study
Version: 2 Date: 20 Feb 2024
Reviewer:  Kenta Watanabe
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your careful revision. I believe that the current version of the manuscript does
not require further revision.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03261-4 (2024)

Title: Proton pump inhibitor therapy after transcatheter angiography in refractory nonvariceal
acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding patients#a cohort study
Version: 2 Date: 22 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
Upon reviewing your revised manuscript, I appreciate your efforts in addressing the previous
comments. However, I noticed that most of the limitations identified, stemming from the
retrospective nature of your study, have not been explicitly acknowledged or addressed in the
revised text. It is crucial for the integrity and clarity of scientific research that such limitations
are transparently communicated within the manuscript. This ensures that the readers have
a complete understanding of the context and scope of the findings. In its current form, the
manuscript does not sufficiently meet this criterion. Therefore, I find it challenging to endorse
its acceptance at this stage.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03261-4 (2024)

Title: Proton pump inhibitor therapy after transcatheter angiography in refractory nonvariceal
acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding patients#a cohort study
Version: 4 Date: 10 May 2024
Reviewer:  Tsutomu Nishida
Reviewer's report:
My comments to Authors:
I have read the revised manuscript and the author's responses to the reviewers’ inquiries.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03259-y (2024)

Title: The association between night eating syndrome and GERD symptoms among university
students at An-Najah National University in Palestine: a cross-sectional study
Version: 0 Date: 11 Mar 2024
Reviewer:  Buthaina Alkhatib
Reviewer's report:
- the manuscript needs language editing.
- a track changes files had been uploaded
- any results about sleep quality should be ignored as the methodology was not valid for
assessment.
- all abbreviations in-text should be revised. Only if it is used as a full name at the first mention
should the abbreviation be used.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03259-y (2024)

Title: The association between night eating syndrome and GERD symptoms among university
students at An-Najah National University in Palestine: a cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 02 Apr 2024
Reviewer:  Buthaina Alkhatib
Reviewer's report:
no comments
the authors cover the required modifications
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03259-y (2024)

Title: The association between night eating syndrome and GERD symptoms among university
students at An-Najah National University in Palestine: a cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 06 Apr 2024
Reviewer:  Abdelhady Elgilany Elgilany
Reviewer's report:
*Needs language & grammatical editing as well as statistical consultation
*Use AOR rather than Exp (B) throughout the text. AOR is more familiar to clinicians
*Sample size calculation: vague & confusing. What is the precision?  Line 108.:The difference
is lacking reference and is tool high (conventionally should be 0.05, 0.03 or 0.01, not 10%)
*What is voluntary sample?
*Merge tables 1,2 & 3 & add GERD risk to the new table s. Delete fig 1.
*Merge tables 4,5 & 6. Title of 3rd column: use N(%) not risk. Calculate COR (95%CI) for each
variable with defined reference category.
Table 7: wrong & confusing.  What is the lower & upper limit of CI presented? Why 2 p-values?
What is the difference?  for BMI add: (continuous) as it has no reference category. Smoking is
a predictors of GERD (please revise in discussion). Physical activity, BMI & non-smoking are
protective with exp(B0 <1 but their 05%CIs were risk (>1). Why this discrepancy?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03259-y (2024)

Title: The association between night eating syndrome and GERD symptoms among university
students at An-Najah National University in Palestine: a cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 08 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
thank you for responding to my reviews.
Table 1 : add equivalency in US dollar for the NIS: New Israeli Shekel. This will help the
international reader to estimate the Economic situation in area.
add the (CI) after all the Exp ( B) values throughout the text.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03259-y (2024)

Title: The association between night eating syndrome and GERD symptoms among university
students at An-Najah National University in Palestine: a cross-sectional study
Version: 4 Date: 02 May 2024
Reviewer:  Abdelhady Elgilany Elgilany
Reviewer's report:
Authors responded adequately to most of reviewers' comments
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03235-6 (2024)

Title: IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY AND REAL-TIME POLYMERASE CHAIN
REACTION: IMPORTANCE IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF INTESTINAL TUBERCULOSIS IN
A PERUVIAN POPULATION
Version: 3 Date: 07 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
authors have highlighted the importance of IHC compared to standard diagnostic methods for
intestinal tuberculosis.
i have certain observations to make
1. Title: may be modified to be more representative of the aim of the study
2. Abstract : please avoid short forms in the abstract eg MTC
3. Introduction: The authors state that Intestinal TB is 6th most common Extra pulmonary site of
involvement but in the discussion, 1st line mentions it to be the most common. Please maintain
consistency and cite literature appropriately
authors may cite the latest review  for evidence-based diagnosis to intestinal tuberculosis DOI:
10.1007/s12664-023-01343-x
4. Methods: methodology follows a pattern in most scientific writing where subjects are
discussed first including study design, followed by procedure, then case definitions, ethics,
consent, and statistical analysis. authors should try to maintain that flow and add the missing
part. (authors may find this paper helpful in designing their manuscript PMID: 16120904  DOI:
10.2214/ajr.185.3.01850591)
5. Results: after demography primary finding of the study may be brought out which authors
aimed to analyse
did all patients undergo Upper GI endoscopy..if yes please mention in the methodology; if not
the stating duodenal involvement may be a misrepresentation
6. Discussion: 1st paragraph should discuss the primary finding of the study and the discussion
needs to be split into paragraphs meaningful. Authors may use the template as suggested above.
all the findings of the study need not be discussed. only important highlights and major changes
from previous studies needs to be discussed Eg IHC vs RT PCR, 75% AFB positivity on Biopsy
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03235-6 (2024)

Title: IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY AND REAL-TIME POLYMERASE CHAIN
REACTION: IMPORTANCE IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF INTESTINAL TUBERCULOSIS IN
A PERUVIAN POPULATION
Version: 3 Date: 21 Feb 2024
Reviewer:  Rathi Pravin Motilal
Reviewer's report:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03235-6 (2024)

Title: IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY AND REAL-TIME POLYMERASE CHAIN
REACTION: IMPORTANCE IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF INTESTINAL TUBERCULOSIS IN
A PERUVIAN POPULATION
Version: 6 Date: 26 Mar 2024
Reviewer:  Rathi Pravin Motilal
Reviewer's report:
Paper can be accepted after incorporation of necessary changes
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03235-6 (2024)

Title: IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY AND REAL-TIME POLYMERASE CHAIN
REACTION: IMPORTANCE IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF INTESTINAL TUBERCULOSIS IN
A PERUVIAN POPULATION
Version: 6 Date: 07 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
authors have addresses most of the observations satisfactorily
discussion seems unfocussed and dragged
I have suggestion for improving discussion
in first paragraph please highlight the findings of the study as directed by aims and objective
of the study. 2nd para could discuss the interpretation and the third para should discuss the
findings of study in other studies. 4th para could discuss the strentth as ell as limitation and final
paragraph can focus on conclusion
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03231-w (2024)

Title: Clip-and-snare method with a pre-looping technique versus conventional method in the
treatment of precancerous lesion and early gastric cancer: a retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 31 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a retrospective single center study comparing conventional ESD with the clip-and-snare
method.
1. How did authors assign the ESD cases to CSM-PLT or conventional method during this study
period? I was not able to find the assignment process.
2. I can understand this method is useful traction method, but why did you not use any other
traction method for any of conventional ESD cases?  Is there any literature that showed CSM
traction is better than others?
3. How long did it take to apply the CSM  in each case? Is there any trouble on attaching the
clip to the lesion?
4. This traction always goes towards the oral side, which may make this traction method inferior
to internal traction methods. Please discuss the superiority of this method compard to internal
traction in which we can decide traction direction.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03231-w (2024)

Title: Clip-and-snare method with a pre-looping technique versus conventional method in the
treatment of precancerous lesion and early gastric cancer: a retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 14 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. CSM-PLT, firstly reported in 2014, is not completely new, and there have been many
comparisons with conventional ESD. A multicenter prospective randomized controlled study
was reported last year (Hasatani K, Yoshida N, Aoyagi H, et al. Usefulness of the clip-and-
snare method using the pre-looping technique for endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric
neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Gastroenterol. 2022 Jan-Feb;35(1):48-55. doi:
10.20524/aog.2021.0679.), so there appears to be a relative lack of comparative power for
current single-center retrospective study.
2. The CSM-PLT group took longer than that of the conventional ESD group in this study,
which is inconsistent with others. It seems to be because the CSM-PLT group had larger lesion
size than that of the conventional ESD group. But why the significant difference in lesion size
occurred between two groups? Would you please to give any explanation or analysis for it?
3. The resection speed in different parts of the gastric body was compared in subgroup analysis,
but statistics and analysis of lesion size in different parts were missing. It may be helpful in
explaining the above questions.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03231-w (2024)

Title: Clip-and-snare method with a pre-looping technique versus conventional method in the
treatment of precancerous lesion and early gastric cancer: a retrospective study
Version: 2 Date: 12 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. If the ESD method is chosen based on the procedure date, please reflect it on Figure 1.
2. Even with this number of procedures, propensity match score should be available. Could you
please consider it?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03255-2 (2024)

Title: The association between dietary vitamin B1 intake and constipation: a population-based
study
Version: 1 Date: 16 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the Author(s):
The authors examine the link between vitamin B1 intake and chronic constipation, which has
not been extensively explored in previous research. The focus of this study is interesting. The
use of a large, nationally representative sample from the NHANES enhances the significance of
the findings, potentially impacting public health guidelines and dietary recommendations.
I would like to comment on some of the questions that need clarification.
1. Limitations in Dietary Data Collection:
The reliance on 24-hour dietary records may not accurately reflect long-term dietary habits. This
could be one of the limitations of this study.
2. Lack of data on dietary fiber:
Several studies have shown a correlation between dietary fiber intake and vitamin B1 intake.
(doi: 10.1007/s001250051047.doi: 10.3390/nu14102078.)
Dietary fiber intake is inversely associated with constipation.
Dietary fiber may be a confounding factor in evaluating the association between vitamin B1
and constipation.
To explore the association between vitamin B1 consumption and chronic constipation, it is
advisable to conduct a multifactorial logistic regression analysis, incorporating supplementary
data regarding dietary fiber consumption.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03255-2 (2024)

Title: The association between dietary vitamin B1 intake and constipation: a population-based
study
Version: 3 Date: 21 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
Response to Authors' Revisions to Manuscript:
Title: The association between dietary vitamin B1 intake and constipation: a population-based
study
I have carefully reviewed the authors' responses and the corresponding revisions made to the
manuscript based on my initial comments. The authors have addressed the concerns raised,
particularly regarding the limitations of dietary data collection and the inclusion of dietary fiber
as a confounding factor in the analysis. The adjustments and addition of relevant data and
references significantly improve the quality of the manuscript and the robustness of its findings.
The effort to include dietary fiber in the multifactor logistic regression analysis and the detailed
revision of the Results section, as highlighted, provide a more comprehensive understanding of
the association between vitamin B1 intake and chronic constipation. The acknowledgment of
the limitations associated with reliance on 24-hour dietary recalls adds to the transparency and
integrity of the study.
Given the revisions made and the thorough response to the comments, I am satisfied that
the manuscript has been significantly improved. The study's focus on an understudied area
of nutrition research, combined with the use of a large, nationally representative sample,
contributes valuable evidence that could influence dietary recommendations and public health
guidelines.
I appreciate the opportunity to review this paper and commend the authors for their diligence
and commitment to improving the quality of the manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03255-2 (2024)

Title: The association between dietary vitamin B1 intake and constipation: a population-based
study
Version: 3 Date: 25 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Using NHANES data, the authors analyzed the association between
vitamin B1 intake and constipation among adults. The findings provide some new knowledge.
However, there are some concerns on the analyses and interpretation.
1. Figure 2 is misleading. The distribution of vitamin B1 should be added to the plot. The outliers
of vitamin B1 intake should be removed in the figure.  Values greater than 3 should not be in
the figure. The syntax used to generate the figure should be provided. Why was the reference
point set at 2 mg/day? Why was the reference odds ratio not equal to 1?
2. The number of participants with two-24 hour food recall should be provided. The inclusion
of those with only one-24 hour food recall is likely to introduce some bias. Two-24 hour food
recall is preferred.
3. The inclusion of all three macronutrients (fat, protein and carbohydrate) and energy intake in
the multivariable model is not justified. Over-adjustment is likely.
4. Subgroup analyses results showed that the association between vitamin B1 intake and
constipation was only significant in some groups. It is not valid to claim the association is
consistent.
5. What was the association with constipation if the authors compare adequate and inadequate
vitamin B1 intake?
6. The manuscript should be proofread for the language. For example, drinking wine,
multifactorial logistic regression.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Major revision is needed.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03255-2 (2024)

Title: The association between dietary vitamin B1 intake and constipation: a population-based
study
Version: 4 Date: 27 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have addressed most of my comments. However, there
are some remaining issues.
1. The statistical model is still problematic. The removal of energy intake is not reasonable. In
nutritional epidemiological studies, adjustment for energy intake is commonly used. I suggest
the adjustment for energy, fat and fiber intake in the model.
2. In the results and method sections, it was mentioned that a weighted generalized additive
model (GAM) was used to assess the non-linear association. However, in the rebuttal, the authors
mentioned using RCS instead of GAM. Please revise the text.
3. The new Figure 2 did not show a significant negative correlation but a trend of inverse
association. Figure 2 legend is not informative. What are the variables adjusted? What is the p-
value? Is it p for the overall trend?
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Minor revision is needed.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03255-2 (2024)

Title: The association between dietary vitamin B1 intake and constipation: a population-based
study
Version: 4 Date: 01 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
Response to the authors' revisions of the manuscript:
I have carefully reviewed the authors' responses to my comments (Reviewer 1) and those of
Reviewer 2. The authors have addressed each of the points raised and have made appropriate
revisions to the manuscript.
The authors have redrawn Figure 2 to address the concerns raised by Reviewer 2, including
adding the participant distribution of vitamin B1 intake using a restricted cubic spline curve.
They also clarified the methodology regarding the use of 24-hour dietary records and justified
their approach by citing similar studies.
The revised manuscript is significantly improved and provides valuable evidence in an
understudied area of nutritional research.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03255-2 (2024)

Title: The association between dietary vitamin B1 intake and constipation: a population-based
study
Version: 5 Date: 24 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The reviewers have addressed my comments satisfactorily. There
are two minor edits to be made.
1. Line 166, “the incidence of constipation” should be “the prevalence of constipation”. It is not
correct to use the word “incidence” in a cross-sectional study.
2. Figure 2, p-value should be ¬p-overall = 0.101. In RCS, there are three p values: p for non-
linear, p for linear, and p for overall.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Some minor edits are needed.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03247-2 (2024)

Title: Serrated polyposis syndrome: defining the epidemiology and predicting the risk of
dysplasia
Version: 1 Date: 06 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Priyanka Kanth
Reviewer's report:
This is a retrospective single center study defining epidemiology of serrated polyposis syndrome
from an Australian cohort.  The study defines the prevalence of SPS in the population studied.
The data was collected prospectively from 2015 to 2021. The strength of the study is more recent
analysis of data when endoscopist/pathologist have better sense of diagnosis of SPS.
I have following comments.
1) There are other studies with prevalence data from other cohorts with similar findings
suggestive of serrated polyposis syndrome to be underdiagnosed.  Irrespective, having more
cohorts describing results would be good.
2) There are too many figures/tables.  Many of the figures can be combined to provide a concise
presentation.
3) Reword/rewrite discussion suggesting that prevalence of SPS is not well understood.  We
have data from UK, Netherlands and some US data that has been previously described. I would
add any prior prevalence data from Australian cohort in reference (refer to work done by Daniel
Buchanan/ Joanne Young). I would suggest rewording the strength ‘largest reported single center
cohort of SPS’. Cite other studies from Australia (PMID: 28979711)
4) SPS surveillance recommendation in the US is 1-3 years (per NCCN). I would cite this for
the US based readers.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03247-2 (2024)

Title: Serrated polyposis syndrome: defining the epidemiology and predicting the risk of
dysplasia
Version: 1 Date: 07 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript entitled “Serrated polyposis syndrome: defining the epidemiology and
predicting the risk of dysplasia” utilizes data from a regional Australian single-centre setting
and includes 247 patients with serrated polyposis syndrome. The authors conclude that serrated
polyposis syndrome is more common than previously though and that they have been able
to develop a prediction model with acceptable accuracy. Unfortunately, the manuscript has
substantial methodological limitations, of which a few is listed below:
1. The study period is from 2015-2021. It seems that information from before 2015 is actually
included if available for subjects undergoing colonoscopy in the study period. It is unclear how
subjects with several colonoscopies during the study period are dealt with. Are the subjects
included multiple times in the project?
2. Since the study is mostly cross sectional (but likely a combination of both cross sectional and
longitudinal data as indicated above), generalizability is prevented. These findings cannot be
replicated in other settings since there are no clear time for inclusion in the “cohort”. In addition,
the “cohort” is a mix of various different indications for colonoscopy.
3. The diagnosis of serrated polyposis syndrome can only be made after histological
examination. Hence, there is no clinical value in “predicting” dysplasia in this setting since this
diagnosis is made exactly at the same time as the diagnosis of serrated polyposis syndrome for
the majority of patients.
4. In figure 1, what is meant by “loss to follow-up”? There is no follow-up for the majority of
patients (this is primarily a cross-sectional study). If there is follow-up available, the authors
need to define start of follow-up and describe follow-up time. And if patients fulfill the criteria
for serrated polyposis syndrome before study start in 2015, they cannot be included since they
do not contribute risk time.
5. In the abstract, it is stated that 8401 patients underwent colonoscopy screening, but this not
correct according to the manuscript. Included patients represent a mix of various indications for
colonoscopy.
6. What is meant by “define the epidemiology” of serrated polyposis syndrome? This is a very
unspecific term.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03264-1 (2024)

Title: Medical radiation exposure in inflammatory bowel disease: an updated meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 15 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
This a worthwhile update
However there is no quality assessment as per Cochrane guidelines this is a major deficiency
eg Newcastle-Otawa or  alternative
There seems no order to the papers in the table? Year, alphabetical, size I favour former.
There is no mention of METRIC trial pivotal to tilt towards use of MR and IUS
Most CT is now done out of hours for urgent situations this should be discussed . Can this be
addressed in analysis too?
Differences between LMIC and HIC might also be addressed
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03264-1 (2024)

Title: Medical radiation exposure in inflammatory bowel disease: an updated meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 25 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
No - there are major issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: - the topic could be interesting, however I think there are many biases
in the paper
- they have done a wide screening of the potential available papers, however data is missing
- they have reported the radiation dose at which patients were exposed. It will be interesting to
know the numbers of CT scans performed, considering that different CT machines could expose
the patient to different radiations
- the authors compared studies published before or after 2012, with the aim to investigate
differences based on different study protocols. But we don't know if in studies published after
2012 are included also older patients. So there is a mix of data, and this will make the analysis
unreliable
- In the discussion the authors stated that "IBD patients are exposed to an environment with
a high tumor incidence". This is an idea from the authors a bit too much "strong"; we know
that exposure to radiations could increase cancer incidence, but eventually the incidence is not
extremely higher compared to other patients/population
- in the discussion section, the author should analyze data and literature, more than put questions
and trying to answer without the support of data
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Try to re-think the paper according to the above indications
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
as stated above
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03264-1 (2024)

Title: Medical radiation exposure in inflammatory bowel disease: an updated meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 13 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
No - there are minor issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Regarding responses to my previous comments:
1) the authors should report in the manuscript that was not complete, as they said in the answer
2) also for this point they should report this information in the manuscript
3) what I meant was: in paper after 2012, are there included in the count CT for IBD performed
before 2012? I'm not worried about other diseases
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
as stated above
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
no