JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-12 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Jejunal microvilli atrophy and reduced nutrient transport in rats with abvanced liver cirrhosis: Title: 
improvement by Insulin-like Growth Factor I (IGF-I) 
 3  29 February 2004 Version: Date: 
 peter L jansen Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The Pamplona group have been emphasizing the role of IGF-1 in cirrhosis-induced jejunal atrophy now for a number of years. In the paper by Pascual et al AJP 2000;279:G319-324 they showed a decreased transport of l-leucine, l-proline, l-glutamic acid and l-cysteine across the brush border of 
BBMVs prepared from CCl4-cirrhotic rats. IGF-1 treatment restored the impaired transport activity. 
They showed that the Vmax of this transport was reduced and the Kt increased for all amino acids tested. In their report in the AJP 1999;276:g37-G42 they showed an impaired transport of galactose in this 
model, IGF-1 restored galactose transport and normalized the elongated jejunal microvilli. 
In the current report they show a reduced d-galactose, l-leucine, l-proline, l-glutamic acid and l-cystine transport in CCl4-cirrhotic rats. The reduced transport was restored to normal by IGF-1. 
Vmax is reduced and Kt increased. Elongated microvilli and microvillous atrophy was normalized by 
IGF-1 treatment. 
What is new in the manuscript? I fail to see any new information over and above that already 
published in their 1999 and 2000 AJP papers. Moreover, this manuscript does not provide us with 
new insights. For example one wonders about the correlation between the microvillous abnormalities 
and decreased transport. Unfortunately this manuscript does not enlighten us about this. What is the 
cause of elongation and atrophy? There is no answer to this question either. 
Minor comments 
Figure 1A. The curves lack initial data points. Figures 1 and 2. What is the significance of data points beyond 60 s (galatcose) and 180s (amino acids)? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Reject because too small an advance to publish in any journal What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-12 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Jejunal microvilli atrophy and reduced nutrient transport in rats with abvanced liver cirrhosis: Title: 
improvement by Insulin-like Growth Factor I (IGF-I) 
 5  4 May 2004 Version: Date: 
 Jordi J MuntanÃ© Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have answered point-by-point all my question in relation to the previous version of the 
manuscript. In my opinion, the revised version is ready to be published. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
The don't need to add more information in the revised version 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) OK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
No discretionary revisions 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-12 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Jejunal microvilli atrophy and reduced nutrient transport in rats with abvanced liver cirrhosis: Title: 
improvement by Insulin-like Growth Factor I (IGF-I) 
 5  11 May 2004 Version: Date: 
 peter L jansen Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
The authors argue in their letter that their current study has been done with a 
more advanced model of cirrhosis than they used in their previous studies. In that regard there may be some merit in this study. This study confirms the results of earlier studies in a model with less advanced cirrhosis. 
 Accept without revision What next?:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-11 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Complete Hepatitis B Virus genome analysis in HBsAg positive mothers and their infants with Title: 
fulminant hepatitis B 
 1  8 April 2004 Version: Date: 
 Cyrille FÃ©ray Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
This paper analyzed the very interesting issue of the vertical transmission of HBV. The studied 
cases are extremely interesting since all 5 children had fulminant hepatitis. Unfortunately, the authors analyzed these very precious cases through direct sequencing of HBV DNA. Although the complete genome was studied, this approach does not permit a complete interpretation of the 
results. Indeed, direct sequencing gives the consensus sequence and not the sequences of 
individual virions. It is thus not possible to perform any phylogenetic studies and to precisely follow the selective pressure occurring on different quasispecies during the course of fulminant hepatitis. 
However, in spite of this major drawback, this paper provides some interesting findings such as hot 
spot mutations in regulatory or immunodominant regions and also the fact that all cases were genotype D . On a general point of view, a major explanation for all these findings is that the variant detected in children likely during FH were the more fitted to the complexe course and setting of 
fulminant hepatitis B. In this view, the viral load although tested have been omitted in the results. The 
strains which are analyzable at this late stage of the disease are not obligatory those which were 
present at the onset of disease. This hypothesis is cited by the authors at the end of the paper but must be emphasized. The fact that HBV strains were not available before the onset of liver disease 
must be underlined. 
The following points must be precised: 
- The limitations of the approach (direct sequencing) must be precised. 
- Did these babies have low viremia as classical during fulminant hepatitis ? 
- What was children’s liver function at the time of study ? 
- Were the mother sampled at the time of birth or when their children were sick ? 
- What was the viral load of chidren and their HBe status ? 
1. Is the question posed by the authors new and well defined? 
yes 
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described, and are sufficient details provided to replicate 
the work? 
no 
3. Are the data sound and well controlled? 
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. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? 
yes 
7. Is the writing acceptable? 
yes
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-11 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Complete Hepatitis B Virus genome analysis in HBsAg positive mothers and their infants with Title: 
fulminant hepatitis B 
 2  14 May 2004 Version: Date: 
 Cyrille FÃ©ray Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I think that the manuscript and the answer letter are sufficiently clear to permit publication of the manuscript. We now understand the limitations encountered by the authors and 
essential clinical data are now precised.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-10 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Partially Responsive Celiac Disease Resulting from Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth and Title: 
Lactose Intolerance 
 2  14 January 2004 Version: Date: 
 carolina ciacci Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The paper reports two cases of celiac disease with overt malabsorption syndrome. It is important that in Countries where celiac disease is considered uncommon the report of clinical cases of celiac disease. However, I have some concern about the concept that celiac disease may be considered 
partially responsive after only 40 days of GFD. In adults celiac disease may take months to recover 
despite strict GFD. SIBO can be a consequence of malabsorption as undigested food is a great pabulum for colon bacteria that may colonize ileum. It is unclear to me why tetracyclin had no effect in fist instance and full effect after 40 days when 
amalbsorpion is still present. 
Lactose malabsorption is described in the second case. Milk intolerance is common in celiac and general population. It is generally quite well tolerated. Beside the patient noticed even before 
diagnosis increase of watery stool after milk assumption. It is good practice to limit milk intake during 
first weeks/months of GFD in particular when overt malabsortion is present. 
I would suggest the Authors to better describe the number od celiac disease patients they have 
seen, the diet the patients were on before diagnosis. 
I do not see the utility of figures. 
 Reject because scientifically unsound What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
none
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-10 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Partially Responsive Celiac Disease Resulting from Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth and Title: 
Lactose Intolerance 
 2  4 February 2004 Version: Date: 
 Antonio Tursi Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General issues: 
Ghoshal et al. reported two cases of celiac disease patients partially responsive to gluten-free diet (GFD) and affected by small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) (one patient) and lactose intolerance (the other one patient). They concluded that in celiac partially or unresponsive to GFD 
SIBO or lactose intolerance should be suspected. 
Although this last statement is condivisibile, we should not never forget the risk of refractory celiac 
disease before to look for other causes of unresponsiveness to GFD. 
Specific comments: 
The authors should describe better the duodenal histology of the studied patient according to 
modified Marsh classification (Oberhuber G, Grandisch G, Vogelsang H. The histopathology of 
coeliac disease: time for a standardized report scheme for pathologists. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol
1999;11: 1185-94). 
How many months the first patient was on GFD before to define the duodenal histology “normal”? 
Did the authors evaluated anti-gliadin and/or anti-tissue transglutaminase antibodies? 
What methods have been used to perform anti-endomysium evaluation? 
The paragraph Discussion should be improved. 
1. The authors stated that “Lactose intolerance could be another cause for such inadequate response to GFD. Whether this is primary or secondary lactose intolerance is matter of 
conjecture…….” . But what is the authors’ opinion about this matter? 
2. None reference is described about the risk of refractory celiac disease in poor or unresponsive celiac patient to GFD. The authors should debate also this point. 3. Finally, the authors should explain better why SIBO or lactose intolerance may perpetuate the 
symptoms in these patients. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-10 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Partially Responsive Celiac Disease Resulting from Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth and Title: 
Lactose Intolerance 
 2  29 February 2004 Version: Date: 
 Peter HR Green Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have presented 2 case histories demonstrating that a systematic approach to the evaluation of patients with poorly responsive celiac disease results in a high yield of possible therapies. 
D- xylose tests are now rarely performed in most developed countries. I would be interested in why 
the authors use this test as often as they appear to. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
References: # 2 and 5 are the same. Was a different reference proposed for # 5? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) Case histories 
1. Page 5. The normal ranges of both total protein and albumin should be provided 
though all the normal test results need not be included. Simply “ results of …. were within the normalrange. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) D- xylose tests are now rarely performed in most developed countries. I would be interested in why the authors use this test as often as they appear to. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
none
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-10 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Partially Responsive Celiac Disease Resulting from Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth and Title: 
Lactose Intolerance 
 3  3 April 2004 Version: Date: 
 Antonio Tursi Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The paper it has been succesfull modified and it is now siutable of publication ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-10 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Partially Responsive Celiac Disease Resulting from Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth and Title: 
Lactose Intolerance 
 3  6 April 2004 Version: Date: 
 carolina ciacci Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
I still think the paper has very little scientific value and, moreover, it can 
give a very wrong message to readers.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-9 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Inter-observer agreement in the assessment of endoscopic findings in ulcerative colitis Title: 
 1  16 February 2004 Version: Date: 
 Rene Lambert Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors analyze inter-observer variations in the endoscopic 
description ( based upon soft indicators requiring a scale) of inflammatory changes in the colonic mucosa. All attempts to improve the precision and reliability of the endoscopy 
report are welcome. The methodology is correct as the 
statistical analysis of the variance Two groups of endoscopists (experienced n = 15) and non experienced ( n= 21) are compared. Most previous reports used still images, here there are video-tapes . Overall 
the conclusion is optimistic because there is no serious discrepancy 
between the 2 goups ; there is ony an increased variance among the young endoscopists. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) No major revision required 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
In the method section the authors should give a definition of the 
variables analyzed: the 4 variables of the old Baron index to determine the EAI, and the other variables.As an example the difference between an erosion and an ulceration should be given, granularity should 
be described as well as the distinction between erythema, friability, 
blood oozing ... 
In the discussion the authors should be more precise on whether they feel 
that the 4 variables of the Baron index are enough, whether the 
granularity should be added on whether a 8 variable index , plus the degree of inflammation should be adopted 
A paragaph comparing the endoscopic assessement in grading ulcerative 
colitis and in grading esophagitis should be added. The report by 
Lundell at al ( Gut 1999) deals with similar variables and similar problems for inflammatory mucosal lesions 
In the introduction the authors should explain that this work is a 
continuation of the work published by them selves in ocotber 2003 in endoscopy ( De Lange..) on the standardization of the endoscopy report 
in ulcerative colitis 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) No comment 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
No competing interest
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-8 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Tracing Ancestry With Methylation Patterns: Most Crypts Appear Distantly Related in Normal Title: 
Adult Human Colon 
Authors: 
Kyoung-Mee Kim ( kkmkys@yahoo.co.kr )
Darryl Shibata ( dshibata@hsc.usc.edu )
 1  25 Aug 2003 Version: Date: 
 Tamostu Sugai Reviewer: 
 A paper of considerable general medical or scientific interest Level of interest: 
 Accept after discretionary revisions Advice on publication: 
The authors investigated the relationships between methylation patterns in CpG rich loci 
(methylation %) in various types of human colon crypts. In addition, the differences in methylation 
sites at two CpG-rich sequences (BGN and CSX sites) were examined in intracrypts and intercrypts. 
Two types of branched crypts were also analyzed: the crypt with a long trunk and a short branch and 
the crypt with a short trunk and a long branch. The concept of a Y-shaped tree is useful in tracing the 
ancestor within the intracrypts. 
This carefully performed and detailed study provides good evidence for the results, particularly with regard to clarifying the difference between an intracryptal single crypt and intracryptal branched 
crypts. In addition, the author confirmed that there was no difference in methylation patterns between 
intercrypts in the same patch, intercrypts > 15cm apart and adjacent intercrypts. These data are very 
interesting, as they shed light on the development of human colon crypts. Specific suggestions are given below. 1. The data, though very interesting, are presented in a slightly confusing manner. The definitions of 
a branched crypt and a Y-shaped tree are very confusing. I believe that Y-shaped trees are not 
actually observed in colonic mucosa, and they are therefore a theoretical concept, rather than a true category of crypt. Were the authors actually referring to a branched crypt resembling an inverse Y-shaped crypt, which is frequently found in routine inflammatory colonic samples? The authors 
should clarify the difference between these types of crypt. In addition, the authors should list the 
picture of a branched crypt as a Figure. 2. In this study, the authors indicated that tag intracrypt distances in branched crypts were significantly greater than in single crypts, and were slightly less than intercrypt distances, but the 
latter differences did not reach a significant level.Their data suggest that branched crypts represent 
an intermediate type between intracryptal single crypts and intercrypts. If this is the case, their findings mean that a mature human colon crypt may develop via branched crypts, which are detected in inflammatory colonic mucosa. The authors should state their views regarding 
development of human colonic crypts in light of their new data. 
3. The authors should clarify what A and B indicate in methylation % BGN and intracrypt Distance of 
Table 1. 
Competing interests: 
None declared.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-8 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Tracing Ancestry With Methylation Patterns:Most Crypts Appear Distantly Related in Normal Title: 
Adult Human Colon 
 1  7 November 2003 Version: Date: 
 Nick Wright Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
1. Examining the figure 3 there remain very few observations-few crypt pairs and only the same few 
branched crypts. I have commented upon the importance of the three-dimensional lattice in the context of inter-crypt relationships in my previous review. The conclusions are far-reaching to be based on such a small number of observations, as I previously remark. 
2. A major point is that there are no positive controls; attached crypts were examined in the colon of 
a patient with quiescent ulcerative colitis. In disease states, the number of crypts apparently in fission can rise rapidly to very high levels ~ 30-40 %. It is generally considered that this is indeed a 
regenerative phenomenon and therefore indeed due to fission. One would then think, a priori, that 
such apparently dividing crypts should be closely related as the fission event would have definitely occurred within the last hours or days. If the methodology is appropriate, then one might expect that these crypts would be closely-related and this would allay fears that the method is not capable of 
picking up closely-related crypts. 
If this could be done, then this would give added verisimilitude to the proposal that crypts apparently 
fission in normal or quiescent mucosa are either (a) taking a very long time to divide or (b) in the 
process of fusion. 
This is an interesting paper, which raises interesting proposals and conclusions. It would be much 
more valuable if the above points, and especially point 2 could be considered.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-8 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Tracing Ancestry With Methylation Patterns: Most Crypts Appear Distantly Related in Normal Title: 
Adult Human Colon 
 2  12 January 2004 Version: Date: 
 Nick Wright Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I cannot agree that the positive controls I have suggested are uncertain. After irradiation or in active ulcerative colitis, there is a large increase in crypt fission. This is unequivocally-regarded as crypt division, and, insofar as I am aware, there is absolutely no evidence that this is crypt fusion. It is 
therefore logical to regard them as positive controls. 
The authors are asking a great deal here: they are asking the reader to accept that crypts apprently 
in fission are not related to each other, using a very few observations. This is a major claim, and 
therefore I cannot understand the author’s reluctance to carry out some more experiments, which 
would be illuminating. If they could show that, in situations where there is very active crypt ‘fission’, 
the crypts were closely related, this would make their observations that crypt ‘fission’ in apprently 
resting or normal mucosa is far mioe complex then previously proposed. 
I do not agree that a lack of positive controls is a problem for any experimental system. If you are 
trying to show a negative is any situation, then your ability to show a positive result in a parallel situation becomes vital. There are numerous examples one could quote on this - just look at the 
current transdifferentiation/fusion debate in stem cell plasticity , where the development of the R26R 
reporter mouse has enabled discrimination between transdifferentiation which is negative in this system (Ianus A, Holz GG, Theise ND, Hussain MA. In vivo derivation of glucose-competent pancreatic endocrine cells from bone marrow without evidence of cell fusion. J Clin Invest. 2003 
Mar;111(6):843-50) and cell fusion which is positive (Alvarez-Dolado M, Pardal R, Garcia-Verdugo 
JM, Fike JR, Lee HO, Pfeffer K, Lois C, Morrison SJ, Alvarez-Buylla A. Fusion of bone-marrow-derived cells with Purkinje neurons, cardiomyocytes and hepatocytes.Nature. 2003 Oct 30;425(6961):968-73). 
I think this must now be an editorial decision. I have made my views plain and it is clear that I am not 
going to change them nor are the authors apprently willing to do any more experiments. 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
only a large interest in the topic!
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-8 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Tracing Ancestry With Methylation Patterns: Most Crypts Appear Distantly Related in Normal Adult Title: 
Human Colon 
 2  31 March 2004 Version: Date: 
 Jean-Pierre Issa Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
I think the manuscript is a useful contribution that is interesting and worth 
publication. The reviewer makes an excellent point that is one of my concerns as well, ie the power of the technique is difficult to discern 
without clear cut controls, though they do show a higher degree of 
intracrypt than intercrypt homogeneity (which is reassuring). Given your 
open review system, I would recommend publication, and readers will have access to the reviews and responses for further thinking/information.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-7 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Botulinum Toxin Injection versus Lateral Internal Sphincterotomy in the treatment of Chronic Title: 
Anal Fissure: a non-randomized controlled trial. 
 1  11 February 2004 Version: Date: 
 Wolfgang Jost Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The paper presented is an interesting one and a worthy contribution to the numerous publications on 
botulinum toxin the treatment of anal fissure. 
It makes a lot of sense to compare the effect of botulinum toxin with a postoperative effect, moreso 
since lateral sphincterectomy is still being considered the treatment of choice, and since botulinum toxin has not yet been approved by the authorities for that kind of indication. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
The discussion part should be more condensed. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
One would wish for larger collectives of course, but this shouldn't lead to refusal of the paper. 
It is quite astonishing that there is only one paper to be cited from the last three years. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-5 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Lactobacillus GG in inducing and maintaining remission of Crohn's disease Title: 
 1  7 November 2003 Version: Date: 
 Paolo Gionchetti Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) b) Minor Compulsory Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the 
wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
1) on page 3, first line of methods it is not clear what does it means ...were with moderate to active 
Crohn's disease 2)page 3 line 19 what does it means : Primary end point was after 6 months or at time of relapse. 3) page 5 line 12, the sentence:" L GG in inducing medically induced remission " is not clear. 
c) Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
1) Authors should clearly state which were the primary and secondary end-points. 
2) results should be better explained. 
 Accept after minor compulsory revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-4 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Inhibition of Gastric H,K-ATPase Activity and Gastric Epithelial Cell IL-8 Secretion by the Title: 
Pyrrolizine Derivative ML 3000 
 3  5 February 2004 Version: Date: 
 Shinji Asano Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I think that the revised paper is improved and suitable for publication. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-3 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Primary Care Physicians Approach to Diagnosis and Treatment of Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C Title: 
Patients 
 1  25 November 2003 Version: Date: 
 Victor Navarro Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
None 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
1. The respondents seem to be rather young with few years in 
practice. This gives the impression of a biased sample. This should be 
acknowledged as a limitation of the study 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
1. In the introduction, 3rd paragraph, second sentence; the numbers 
to not make sense. 
2. The diction throughout the document requires careful 
editorialization; eg, there is no word in the English language, "monitorization" (see introduction, 3rd paragraph). Also, in the abstract, the conclusion statement does not convey a clear message....."insufficient 
compatibility for true diagnoses" 
3. The methods must be described more carefully. That is, the nature of the questions asked must be clearer so that the results can be followed more easily. As an example, the 3rd sentence of the first paragraph in this 
section lists what seem to be the focuses of questions contained within the 
questionnaire. However, how these questions are asked are pertinent to accurate interpretation of the results. By more clearly describing the questions asked, the reader can more easily understand what is meant when it 
is stated that the participants stated that they could not recognize 
disease. Does this mean the participant was actually asked if they could recognize disease or was this surmised based on their responses to certain questions? 
4. The discussion is rambling and tangential. The focus should be on 
the shortcomings in the knowledge/training/practice patterns of primary care physicians in Turkey, in regards to Hepatitis C and B. There is too much recapitulation of the results. The message of the study is lost in this 
discussion; this section should be rewritten to focus on the major message 
of the paper. 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have no conflicts of interest to report in regards to this paper, its 
content, authors, or other competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-3 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Primary Care Physicians Approach to Diagnosis and Treatment of Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C Title: 
Patients 
 3  23 December 2003 Version: Date: 
 Veronique Massari Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have followed the recommendations and original criticisms have been answered it is OK for me 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-3 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Primary Care Physicians Approach to Diagnosis and Treatment of Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C Title: 
Patients 
 3  20 January 2004 Version: Date: 
 Victor Navarro Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
I have reviewed the revised manuscript and am satisfied that the authors 
addressed by criticisms. The diction still requires editorial work, but the scientific information merits publication in your journal
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-2 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Effect of Four-day Psyllium Supplementation on Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Title: 
Prospective Double Blind Randomized Trial
 1  6 October 2003 Version: Date: 
 Gian Dorta Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Minor Compulsory Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which 
the author can be trusted to correct) 
1.The introduction is to long. You should restrict the introduction on dietary fiber an bowel 
preparartion. 2. Results: - it would be interesting to know the localization of the segments of worst bowel preparartion (left? 
rigth? or caecum?) 
- can you give also the results of the subjective comments of the observer? 3. Table 2: give also the mean values of stool frequency and give a clear title 4. Table 3: give a title to the table 
5. The discussion is too long, try to focus on your study results 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached): 
 Accept after minor compulsory revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
none
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-2 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Effect of Four-day Psyllium Supplementation on Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Title: 
Prospective Double Blind Randomized Trial
 1  16 October 2003 Version: Date: 
 Huann-Sheng Wang Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The manuscript is scientifically sound. 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Minor Compulsory Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which 
the author can be trusted to correct) 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance in its specialized field or of broad interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-1 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Mobilization of xanthine oxidase from the gastrointestinal tract in acute pancreatitis Title: 
 3  13 January 2004 Version: Date: 
 Thierry Dugernier Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Answers to previous comments and questions/criticisms are acceptable . 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
Abstract-conclusions:convert without"s" 
Background:"The severe form of....(page 4) 
"death"instead of "dead" in the next sentence page5:"present" instead of "presents"(1st line) Discussion:page11-"operating"(last sentence 1st paragraph) 
page14-"enter" instead of "achieve"(1st line -2dparagraph) 
page14:same para-"suggest";"uptake";"splanchnic" 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-1 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Mobilization of xanthine oxidase from the gastrointestinal tract in acute pancreatitis Title: 
 3  14 January 2004 Version: Date: 
 Ashok Saluja Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The manuscript has been appropriately revised. 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
none
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-3-35 (2003)

Reviewer's report 
 Hepatholithiasis with biliary ascariasis - A case report Title: 
Authors: 
Dr Kirtikumar S Pilankar ( kirtikumarp@yahoo.com )
Dr Anjali D Amarapurkar ( anjali_1963@hotmail.com )
Rajeev M Joshi ( drrajeevjoshi@yahoo.com )
Tilakdas S Shetty ( tsshetty@rediff.com )
Amit S Khitani ( amit126@hotmail.com )
 3  23 Jul 2003 Version: Date: 
 luca antonio aldrighetti Reviewer: 
 A paper whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Accept after discretionary revisions Advice on publication: 
1. The case is well described. 
2. The correlation between biliary ascariasis and hepatolithiasis is interesting even if a single case is 
not enought for such a conclusion. 
3. I suggest the author to add some imaging, i.e. TC scan and ERCP. 4. Resective surgery is not a clear indication in the presence of bilateral gallstones and is not the treatment of choice for liver abscesses. Percutaneous drainage of the abscess should have been 
considered first. Would the authors explain why the patient underwent hepatic resection? 
5. How the patient is now treated for the right lobe lithiasis? 
Competing interests: 
None declared.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-3-35 (2003)

Reviewer's report 
 Hepatholithiasis with biliary ascariasis - A case report Title: 
Authors: 
Dr Kirtikumar S Pilankar ( kirtikumarp@yahoo.com )
Dr Anjali D Amarapurkar ( anjali_1963@hotmail.com )
Rajeev M Joshi ( drrajeevjoshi@yahoo.com )
Tilakdas S Shetty ( tsshetty@rediff.com )
Amit S Khitani ( amit126@hotmail.com )
 3  24 Jul 2003 Version: Date: 
 mohammad S khuroo Reviewer: 
 A paper of considerable general medical or scientific interest Level of interest: 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have Advice on publication: 
responded to the compulsory revisions 
The authors describe a case of hepatobiliary ascariasis presenting as hepatolithiais and hepatic 
abscess. Imaging tools failed to reveal the nature of the underlying pathology and an adult ascaride 
was detected in the bile duct on the resected specimen. Although hepatobiliary ascariais is rare in 
developed countries the disease is endemic in developing countries with temperate climate. This 
case report is a good example of how this entity can be missed by imaging tools and may be detected only at histology. 
I would suggest following to the authors: 
1. References need to be written in the correct format. 
2.A CT scan and resected specimen gross photo shall be helpful along with the histology for the 
readers. 
3.Epidemiology of hepatolithiais and hepatobiliary parasites needs to be detailed out. 
4.Pathogeneis of hepatolithiasis and biliary parasites needs to be defined as known form the 
literature. 
Competing interests: 
None declared.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-3-35 (2003)

Reviewer's report 
 Hepatholithiasis with biliary ascariasis - A case report Title: 
 7  12 September 2003 Version: Date: 
 luca antonio aldrighetti Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Responses from the authors to my questions are OK! 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Minor Compulsory Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which 
the author can be trusted to correct) 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
 Accept without revision Advice on publication: 
 A paper whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-3-35 (2003)

Reviewer's report 
 Hepatholithiasis with biliary ascariasis - A case report Title: 
 7  29 September 2003 Version: Date: 
 mohammad S khuroo Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
I HAVE LOOKED AT THE PAPER AND FIND THAT SOME NECASSARY ALTERATIONS HAVE 
BEEN DONE. YET SOME ASPECTS OF PAPER I AM WORRIED ABOUT ESPECIALLY 
GRAMMATICAL MISTAKES AND SOME CORRETIONS IN THE REFERENCES. IF PAPER IS 
ACCEPTED IT SHALL NEED EDITORIAL REVIEW FOR THESE CORRECTIONS AND GETTING 
REFERENCES IN ORDER. REGARDS.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-3-33 (2003)

Reviewer's report 
 Generic and Disease-Specific Health Related Quality of Life in Non-cirrhotic, Cirrhotic and Title: 
Transplanted Liver Patients: a cross-sectional study. 
 2  6 September 2003 Version: Date: 
 john C bucuvalas Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The report is comprehensive and examines a large population of patients with a wide range of liver disease. The information presented is of interest to hepatologists, policy makers, patients and families. 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
1. The definition used to identify NC and CC are not based on established criteria. Might a simple classification scheme like the Childs-pugh measure be applied 
2. The symptoms addressed in the final figure do not include any of the potential side effects of 
immunosuppressive medication. In future studies, it might be worthwhile to address specifically the effects of these medications on quality of life 
Minor Compulsory Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which 
the author can be trusted to correct) 1. The color of the bars for liver transplant recipients in figures 1 and 4 are inconsistent 2. Throughout the report, there are errors in grammar. Close proofreading is 
recommended.(examples) 
3. Were the clinical conditions of those who did not respond different from the respondents, a potential area of bias. 
page 14 
compensated cirrhotic patients may be a symptomatic for years or decades: should read compensated cirrhotic patients may be asymptomatic for years or decades: 
page 4 
We evaluated if the LDSI is sensitive to these differences should read We evaluated if the LDSI was 
sensitive to these differences. 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
 Accept after minor compulsory revisions Advice on publication: 
 A paper of considerable merit and interest in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
none
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-3-33 (2003)

Reviewer's report 
 Generic and Disease-Specific Health Related Quality of Life in Non-cirrhotic, Cirrhotic and Title: 
Transplanted Liver Patients: a cross-sectional study. 
 2  11 September 2003 Version: Date: 
 Gordon Taylor Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Pg 5 para 1 ln -2. “The protocol was conform the ethical guidelines”. Check grammer 
Pg 7 ln 2. Please provide Confidence intervals for the estimates of Kappa. 
Pg 8 para 2 ln 8. “were similar as the robust standard errors etc”. Check grammer 
Pg 10 ln 5 & 8: “In total 1175 respondents were included in the analysis”. This sentence has been 
included twice in this short paragraph. 
Pg 10 para 2 ln 5 (and other places in the paper) : The mean amount of time spent on paid or 
voluntary work has been presented without any idea of the spread of the data. 
Pg 12: The authors regularly mention significant associations or probabilities but do not define these. 
Please state the P values. 
Table 1: Why is the 1st/2nd stage tertiary education score for the Dunch MFI-20 controls zero? If true 
they appear to be a very different group in this respect. If it is not relevant then please remove. 
Minor Compulsory Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which 
the author can be trusted to correct) 
Pg 7 ln -1 : Are the adults really randomly drawn? I am not sure how the Dutch telephone directories 
are organised. However, in the UK it would not be possible to do this. Please can you provide some 
more information on this? 
Pg 9: ln 2 : The odds ratios have been corrected for age, gender, education level, aetiology med. 
Use etc. Is the adjustment for so many factors justified? I would like to see a justification for this level
of correction. 
Pg 10 ln 4 : “1222 gave informed consent”. I am unclear of the difference between the 1222 patients 
that have given informed consent and the 1243 patients that completed the questionnaire. I would 
suggest that someone who has completed and returned the questionnaire has given their consent. Perhaps a short discussion on the authors approach to this could be included. 
Pg 11 & 12 : Much of the discussion on the data that is in the tables in unnecessary and is already 
available to the reader in the tables themselves with an explanation of its meaning in the discussion. 
 Accept after minor compulsory revisions Advice on publication: 
 A paper whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-3-33 (2003)

Reviewer's report 
 Generic and Disease-Specific Health Related Quality of Life in Non-cirrhotic, Cirrhotic and Title: 
Transplanted Liver Patients: a cross-sectional study. 
 3  4 November 2003 Version: Date: 
 Gordon Taylor Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
I can confirm that I am happy with the revisions made to the manuscript 
and would be happy for it to be published.