JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-157 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:CD44 but not CD24 expressions are related to poor prognosis in gastric
cancer
Version:1Date:20 March 2014
Reviewer: Baek-hui Kim
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, authors examined immunohistochemical expression of CD44
and CD24 in gastric cancer tissues. And authors showed that CD44 expression
was associated with poor prognosis.
I have some comments on this manuscripts.
Major compulsory revisions
1. In the conclusion of abstract, authors suggesting that 'CD44 might play
important role in the gastric carcinogenesis'. But, in this study, authors only
analyzed immunohistochemical expression and clinicopathologic data. Gastric
carcinogenesis seems not proper term as a result of this study.
2. Materials and Methods - Participants - line 1
' ......290 gastric cancer patients......'
More clarification is needed what type of cancer patients are enrolled in this
study. Does gastric cancer includes adenosquamous, squamous,
neuroendocrine tumor, GISTs, or others? or only adenocarcinomas?
3. Materials and Methods - Participants - line 6 and table 1
'The diagnosis of .......to the World Health Organization criteria.'
More precise description of which WHO criteria was used in this study is needed.
WHO GI published on 2010 or earlier editions. In the table 1, all cancers are
divided into well, moderately and poorly differentiated carcinoma. Mucinous,
poorly cohesive, and undifferentiated carcinomas are excluded in this study?
4. Paticipants includes many cases with TNM stage IV (n=33, 11%). According to
the AJCC 7th edition, stage IV means presence of distant metastasis.
Clarification of which staging system was used in this study is recommended. (In
the table 1, numbers of patients with stage IV (n=33) and distant metastasis
(n=36) are different.). And, whether all patients in this study was radical surgery
group or some palliative group was included is important information for readers.
Comments on type of lymph node dissection (D1, D1+, D2), margin status,
post-op chemotherapy would also be helpful.
5. Explanation about determining cut-off value of CD24 and CD44 as H-score of
30 would be helpful to readers. Arbitrary cut-off or median value or other
reference?
6. In the discussion section (page 10, line13), there is comment about
cytoplasmic expression of CD24. Was there no expression of CD24 in
cytoplasm? Only membrane and nuclear expression was noted in the results.
Minor essential revisions
1. page 6, line 6
4um in width -> 4um in thickeness
2. page 8, line 7
than without infiltration -> than without invasion
Discretionary Revisions
1. Explanation about why H. pylori study is conducted in the introduction section
would be more helpfut to readers
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-157 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:CD44 but not CD24 expressions are related to poor prognosis in gastric
cancer
Version:1Date:7 April 2014
Reviewer: Emilie Bessède
Reviewer's report:
The aim of this article was to investigate wether CD44 and/or CD24 expression
was altered in gastric cancer. The authors have included 290 cases of human
gastric cancer. They performed immunohistochemistry on the tumors. They have
concluded that CD44 expression was associated to a poor prognosis in gastric
cancer but they didn’t find any association between this marker and the different
clinical parameters nor with H. pylori status. No difference of CD24 expression
has been observed for all of these parameters.
Comments.
Major comments.
General comments. The histopathological types of the gastric cancers following
Lauren classification are not mentioned. It is important to have this clinical data
and to precise what is the localization of the adenocarcinoma (cardia or not) in so
far as it could explain why there is so few H. pylori positive patients.
Material and method. As this study only uses immunohistochemistry methods to
quantify CD24 and CD44 expressions, it should include photographies of the
different references of the intensities: 0,1,2,3 and 4. It could be included as
supplemental data. How many fields have been counted and how many cells
have been counted to get the percentage of the positive cells? I regret that the
quantification is only supported by IHC which is quite subjective depending on
the area of the blocks and of course of the pathologists. Even if the authors
asked 2 different pathologists, this is a failure of this study. The study would be
very interesting if a quantification of CD44 and CD24 expression would be
performed using molecular technology.
Discussion.
Page 10. I do not agree with the sentence “no CD24 and CD44 positive staining
was found in the normal gastric surface epithelium, it was consistent (and not
consist) with previous studies”. For example, one study (Bessède E et al.,
Oncogene 2013) has shown that in normal gastric mucosa CD44 is expressed.
You should check and change this sentence.
Page 10, second paragraph. Can you precise which studies are showing that
CD24 was expressed in the various tumors you mention ?
Page 11. The first paragraph is not essential and should be changed. When
reading your discussion, I do not understand why you are talking about the roles
of CD44: you do not give any explanation of the potential role of CD44 and the
survival.
You are talking about a study perfomed by Zhang et al., but CD44 has already
been described as a gastric CSC in 2009 by Takaishi. Concerning CD24 I do not
think that it is judicious to conclude that CD44+/CD24+ cells are gastric CSC vs.
CD44-/CD24-. To compare the expression of CD24, you should compare the
properties of cells CD44+ and expressing or not CD24.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-157 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:CD44 but not CD24 expressions are related to poor prognosis in noncardia
adenocarcinoma of stomach
Version:3Date:11 July 2014
Reviewer: Hideo Baba
Reviewer's report:
In this study, authors presented that individual expression of CD44 was
associated with poor survival of gastric carcinoma. But they also showed there is
no significant correlation between expression of CD24 and prognosis. Then
authors concluded CD44 is clinically useful for prediction of gastric cancer. In
addition, authors respond to some query I required.
As summary, the contents are sufficient to publish this report on BMC
gastroenterology.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-157 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:CD44 but not CD24 expressions are related to poor prognosis in noncardia
adenocarcinoma of stomach
Version:3Date:11 July 2014
Reviewer: Baek-hui Kim
Reviewer's report:
Most of previous review comments were responded and corrected. But, I think
that some of them are not appropriately responded.
Major Comulsory Comments
1. Direct reference of tumor classification (except for Lauren classification,
reference #13) or staging was not added to the reference. But, authors added
reference #14, and readers will guess that WHO classification system(2010) and
AJCC 7th edition were used in this study. More specific description is needed.
2. Authors responded that mucinous carcinoma, poorly cohesive carcinoma and
undifferentiated carcinomas were excluded in this study. Poorly cohesive
carcinoma and mucinous carcinomas are major histopathologic types of gastric
adenocarcinoma (more than 20%). Why poorly cohesive carcinomas (signet ring
cell carcinomas) and mucinous carcinomas were exculded in this study?
Minor Essential revisions
1. Table 1. H.p negative, CD24 positive: 36(52.8%) : typing error
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-158 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Laparoscopy-assisted posterior low anterior resection of rectal cancer
Version:3Date:10 June 2014
Reviewer: Aneel Bhangu
Reviewer's report:
The authors should be congratulated for reporting their technique in a
challenging group of patients. My suggestions are to improve clarity for the
generalist reader, as this is a technique paper for the super-specialised pelvic
surgeon.
Minor compulsory changes
Introduction – is long and rambling. The authors need to get to their point much
faster, and how they will address current controversies.
Methods
Selection bias – the authors do make clear their selection of patients for this
specific procedure. The following information is needed:
1. are these consecutive patients
2. how many patients underwent surgery for rectal cancer in total over the
corresponding period. Also, what did these patients receive surgically? (i.e. open
v lap assisted v the 13 in this report).
The authors start presenting results in the method – e.g. height data
Are the complication results to 30 days, or beyond? Were all patients actively
followed up or was this a notes review?
Please can the authors more definitely explain what they mean by ‘posterior
approach’, for the non-expert reader. This is important to differentiate whether
they are progressing knowledge based on laparoscopic assisted surgery with a
Pfannenstiel (which they are, through a laparoscopic TME completed by a
perineal incision [?]). The single sentence explaining it can be expanded upon in
the introduction -this is the crux of the paper.
Statistical analysis – this should be more detailed so that readers
Discussion
APPEAR - “This surgery was easy to perform” – this use of language is
inappropriate. I don’t think this is what the APPEAR authors were trying to say.
The discussion of the strengths and limitations of the study is appropriate.
General comments
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
Yes- see comments on intro
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
Need some clarification
3. Are the data sound?
Yes - case series
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
yes
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
yes
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
NA
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
yes
9. Is the writing acceptable?
Mostly
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-158 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Laparoscopy-assisted posterior low anterior resection of rectal cancer
Version:3Date:17 June 2014
Reviewer: Andrew Beggs
Reviewer's report:
The authors are to be congratulated on a well written paper on Laparoscopic
posterior LAR. In particular the figures are excellent and enhance the paper. The
paper is suitable for publication, and I have a few minor points to enhance the
manuscript:
Minor essential revisions:
1) Page 3 - I would disagree with the authors that the effectiveness of
laparoscopic rectal surgery is under question. The MRC CLASSIC trial has
shown the oncological outcomes are similar to open - this should be reflected in
the manuscript
2) I think the authors should emphasise in their introduction that their described
technique is for low stage rectal tumours, as T3/T4 tumours would still be dealt
with in the normal way
3) p7 line 148 - "an anal canal was placed from the anus" - this makes no sense
and should be revised
4) p12 line 147 - "but also can handle certain pelvic floor complications which
appear when separating bowel under endoscopy, such as pelvic floor bleeding" -
it is not clear what the authors mean by this - please revise
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-156 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Factors influencing treatment outcome in patients with gastroesophageal
reflux disease: outcome of a prospective pragmatic trial in Asian patients
Version:2Date:25 February 2014
Reviewer: Stanislas Bruley des Varannes
Reviewer's report:
Factors influencing treatment outcome in patients with gastroesophageal reflux
disease : outcome of a prospective pragmatic trial in Asian patients?
Submitted to BMC Gastroenterology (February 2014)
This study shows that in Asian GERD patients treated in clinical practice control
of symptoms appears lower that in western populations. Results show that
therapeutic response is associated with ERD and lower Request –GI score.
This paper is interesting mainly for the conditions of study that are everyday
practice. This is indeed a pragmatic study with patients considered as having a
diagnosis of GERD according to the opinion of investigating physician. The study
was well conducted and used validated tools such as Request Questionnaire
(short version). Analysis is appropriate and results appear reliable. Consequently
conclusions are of interest.
Several results are consistent with those of previous studies especially for ERD
vs NERD. In fact I am not convinced that treatment outcome is really different
between asian and western populations as these studies were not conducted in
similar conditions. In addition and as indicated by authors, reporting reflux
symptoms may be influenced by ethnic conditions. These aspects could be a
little more discussed to make the reader more informed on the overall differences
between Asian and Western populations.
Minor remarks
1 - BMI falls short of statistical significance (0.08) suggesting that there is a
possible effect of BMI on treatment outcome (beta risk). That would need an
additional comment as in some western studies a low BMI has been found to be
associated with a lower response (Zerbib F, Simon M, Belhocine K, Capdepont
M, Mion F, Bruley des Varannes S, Galmiche JP. Clinical, but not oesophageal
pH-impedance profiles, predict response to proton pump inhibitors in
gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Gut 2012;61:501-6).
2 - Table 1 – Is duration of GERD symptoms available for these patients ? This
factor could be interesting to analyze.
3 - Legends of figures : They could be improved and more detailed and
informative
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-155 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Case series of Meckel's diverticulum: usefulness of double-balloon
enteroscopy for diagnosis
Version: 2Date:29 September 2013
Reviewer: Tom Moreels
Reviewer's report:
The authors provide a descriptive case series of 10 patients with Meckel's
diverticulum diagnosed by double-balloon enteroscopy. There are several
comments to be addressed:
A. Major comments:
1. There are several grammatical and spelling errors throughout the text.
2. The table (as supplementary file) is more clear as compared to the description
of each individual case. It is suggested to include the table in the text and
suppress the description of each case to 2 or 3 sentences.
3. Although 6 patients underwent Meckel scintigraphy, only 1 was positive. This
is an important finding, which should be highlighted in the discussion, stating the
negative Meckel scintigraphy does not exclude the presence of Meckel's
diverticulum.
4. Figure 3 of capsule endoscopy showing "biffurcation" is not convincing. It is
generally extremely difficult to diagnose Meckel's diverticulum using capsule
endoscopy. This should be discussed.
5. It is suggested to include a clinical flowchart of examinations when Meckel's
diverticulum is suspected.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-155 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Case series of Meckel's diverticulum: usefulness of double-balloon
enteroscopy for diagnosis
Version:2Date:12 May 2014
Reviewer: Martin Keuchel
Reviewer's report:
The authors present a very interesting case series on patients with Meckel´s
diverticulum diagnosed by double balloon enteroscopy.
Although this series neither allows a reliable epidemiologic analysis nor a valid
comparison between methods due to selection bias and uncontrolled application
of the different tests it presents several remarkable aspects:
Symptoms arising from Meckel´s diverticulum are not restricted to childhood (the
oldest patient was 83 years, mean age 31.5 years). Nevertheless, also in this
older group of patients, painless GI bleeding was the leading symptom.
Data, although not systematic, suggest that retrograde (double) balloon
enteroscopy is the best diagnostic test for Meckel´s diverticulum. However, an
inverted diverticulum may lead to misinterpretation. The possibility to diagnose
Meckel´s diverticulum during antegrade double balloon enteroscopy via selective
enterography although the lesion cannot be reached directly with the endoscope
is an interesting approach.
CT scan seems to do better in detection than in correct diagnosis. Even in the
presence of ectopic gastric mucosa, Meckel scan was negative in one case.
Information would be of interest about possible use of proton pump inhibitor in
this patient that might have contributed to false negative scan.
(Meckel´s) diverticula missed by capsule endoscopy have been reported before.
The round capsule endoscopic image rather suggests use of a Pillcam SB1 than
SB2 as described in the text.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-155 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Case series of Meckel's diverticulum: usefulness of double-balloon
enteroscopy for diagnosis
Version:2Date:11 June 2014
Reviewer: José Cotter
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
This is an interesting and relevant case series, though requiring a few corrections
and clarification of some issues.
1- In the abstract, first paragraph (Background), there is a typing error in the word
“examination”
2- The last sentence of the Conclusion in the Abstract should be rephrased as:
“Double-balloon enteroscopy should be used complementarily to other less
invasive examinations, when needed to confirm or establish the diagnosis”
3- In the Background section, second paragraph, it should be mentioned:
“double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) or single-balloon enteroscopy”
4- In the Case Presentation section, first paragraph, it should be referred who
performed the conscious sedation with midazolam and pentazocine
(Anaesthesiologist? Endoscopist? Nurse?)
5- In Figure 2B, the lesions should be pointed with an arrow
6- In Case 3, it should be explained the reason why DBE was performed after
nondiagnostic EGD, CS and abdominal CT, without considering other less
invasive diagnostic examinations of the small bowel previous to DBE.
7- In Case 5, it should be explained why DBE was performed, although
apparently unnecessary in view of the results of previous abdominal CT and
small bowel series.
8- In Case 6, it should be clarified whether the second retrograde DBE was
performed after bowel cleansing.
9- In the Conclusions section:
a) In the first paragraph, the first three entries mentioning “DBE” should be
complemented with “or single-balloon enteroscopy”
b) It should be emphasized the higher diagnostic yield of the retrograde approach
due to the anatomic location of most cases of MD.
c) It should be recognized that there is a limitation in the urgent setting, due to
the fact that previous bowel cleansing is required.
d) It should be highlighted that balloon enteroscopy should only be performed
after a suspected diagnosis of MD has been directly or indirectly indicated by
other less invasive diagnostic examinations, such as abdominal CT or capsule
enteroscopy ((based on bleeding or other features)
e) It should be emphasized the low sensitivity of Tc-99m pertechnetate
scintigraphy for the diagnosis of MD in this case series.
10- Finally, it would be interesting and very enriching in terms of assessing the
real value of DBE in the diagnosis of MD, to know the number of patients with
MD treated during the same period in the Kobe City Medical Center General
Hospital who did not require DBE for the diagnosis.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-155 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:A Case series of Meckel's diverticulum: usefulness of double-balloon
enteroscopy for diagnosis
Version:5Date:23 July 2014
Reviewer: Tom Moreels
Reviewer's report:
The authors have sufficiently adapted the manuscript according to the reviewers'
comments. However, a point-by-point answer to the different questions is
missing.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-155 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:A Case series of Meckel's diverticulum: usefulness of double-balloon
enteroscopy for diagnosis
Version:5Date:8 August 2014
Reviewer: Ming-wei Lai
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript has clarified some issues and been polished in writing.
The authors have replied my questions or comments point by point. Two
additional suggestions are listed below:
1. Page 6, line 1. (No proton pump inhibitors were used in all cases.)
The author replied that cimetidine or glucagon was not used. I suggest to change
the sentence to “Neither cimetidine nor proton pump inhibitors were used in all
cases before MD scan”. (Minor Essential Revisions)
2. Page 6-11. In response to other reviewer’s comment, Table 1 was planned to
be embedded in the text instead of supplementary table and the individual case
history was summarized. I suggest Case 1-3 paragraphs may be omitted
because the Table 1 already presented everything. The order of the column may
be adjusted in parallel with the flow chart (Abdominal CT before small bowel
series). I suggest the order of various examinations may be presented in each
case in the table to make the algorithm clear, as suggested change in the “1
need revision” file. (Minor Essential Revisions)
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-155 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:A Case series of Meckel's diverticulum: usefulness of double-balloon
enteroscopy for diagnosis
Version:5Date:15 August 2014
Reviewer: José Cotter
Reviewer's report:
After reading the cover letter, I consider all the original criticisms answered.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-154 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Association between ERCC1 and TS expression levels and disease free
survival in colorectal cancer patients in response to oxaliplatin and fluorouracil
(5-FU) adjuvant chemotherapy
Version:1Date:7 March 2014
Reviewer: Ida Hilmi
Reviewer's report:
The subject matter is an interesting one. However, I think major compulsory
revisions have to be made.
The major flaw is the methodology. the authors seem to be looking at too many
things; is the study trying to test a new regime (chemo 2) with higher oxaliplatin
dose, to look for ERCC1 and TS expression level in DFS or to look at the
correlation between these markers and response to oxaliplatin? If the last aim is
the major one, I don't think this was clearly demonstrated at all. A comparison
would have to be made between two matched groups using a standardized
oxaliplatin based regimen and then comparing the expression levels between the
two groups.
Minor Revisions
The conclusion topic was inserted wrongly, should only be before the last
concluding paragraph.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-153 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Mortality following acute pancreatitis: social deprivation, hospital size and
time of admission: record linkage study
Version:2Date:2 December 2013
Reviewer: Marcel M Spanier
Reviewer's report:
Acute pancreatitis (AP) related mortality is an important issue. Normally the 30
days mortality rate is reported, the authors focus on the 60 days mortality rate.
Besides the general mortality, the authors also analyze the influence of five
different factors for two main causes of AP (gallstones and alcohol).
The strength of this study is that the data are linked with different databases.
However the aetiology is known of by 35% of the total population.
Major concern, it is not known/ discussed if the authors checked and corrected
for unique cases (normally only 80% cases are really unique).
Another major concern is the fact that first attack AP's and recurrent AP's are not
seperatly analyzed (see p 7 definition of new cases).
Minor concerns:
The five factors analyzed are very mixed from social deprivation to influence of
EWTDs. To create a more easily to read manuscript the authors can probably
skip some two of them.
-the five factors analyzed should be discussed through the manuscript in the
same order.
-p 10 the percentage of total aetiology is not 100% but only 70.5%
p10 how can galstones ( in 13%) lead to death? This needs an explanation
-p14 study limitations: some should be added to the methods section, not in the
discussion section. some cases were excluded.
-table 2, 3 and 4 have a great overlap, they should be shorter.
-the five factors analyzed should not be mentioned as prognostic factors in the
text of the different tables, this is not the correct term and even misleading.Op 1
dec. 2013, om 22:12 heeft Spanier, Marcel het volgende geschreven:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-153 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Mortality following acute pancreatitis: social deprivation, hospital size and
time of admission: record linkage study
Version:3Date:21 January 2014
Reviewer: Camilla Nøjgaard
Reviewer's report:
Major revisions
Table 2 is too big. I think it has to be divided into two. Also, the results described
below the table should be transfered to the results in the text.
Minor revisions
In results, p 10, line 7: Change the last part of the sentence about unknown
aetiologies to "In 29.5% (4359 cases) the aetiology was unknown."
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-153 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Mortality following acute pancreatitis: social deprivation, hospital size and
time of admission: record linkage study
Version:3Date:2 February 2014
Reviewer: Marcel M Spanier
Reviewer's report:
Generally, the manuscript is still not easy to read because to much data are
reported and listed in the Tables and the data or not always easily ordered.
The authors did not report separately first versus recurrent attacks. Now they
comment in the footnotes... should be in the manuscript itself or in the Result
section
The authors do not comment on " unique cases", meaning an true unique
person, identified on e.g. sex, birth date, race,... How was this checked?
The definition of a first attack is still weak. The time period of preceding 60 days,
should be al least one year.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-153 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Mortality following acute pancreatitis: social deprivation, hospital size and
time of admission: record linkage study
Version:5Date:16 July 2014
Reviewer: Alex Bottle
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
Introduction: “There is large variation in mortality following emergency
admissions, including acute pancreatitis, across hospitals in the UK.” Some
evidence is needed for this.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-152 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:A second-look endoscopy may not reduce the bleeding after endoscopic
submucosal dissection for gastric epithelial neoplasm
Version:2Date:5 June 2014
Reviewer: Tetsuya Mine
Reviewer's report:
It is possible to accept this manuscript in BMC Gastroenterology int he present.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-152 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:A second-look endoscopy may not reduce the bleeding after endoscopic
submucosal dissection for gastric epithelial neoplasm
Version:2Date:16 June 2014
Reviewer: Hendrik Manner
Reviewer's report:
All changes made as suggested, interesting paper
Only one minor comment:
On which postoperative day were the check-up endoscopies carried out? Can
the authors deliver clear data (descriptive statistics, minimum, maximum and
mean of postoperative days as well as standard deviation) please.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
none
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-152 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:A second-look endoscopy may not reduce the bleeding after endoscopic
submucosal dissection for gastric epithelial neoplasm
Version:3Date:25 July 2014
Reviewer: Hendrik Manner
Reviewer's report:
review already done
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
none
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-151 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Hyperammonia Induces Specific Liver Injury through an Intrinsic
Ca2+-independent Apoptosis Pathway
Version:2Date:2 May 2014
Reviewer: Manlio Vinciguerra
Reviewer's report:
This study is intended to study hyperammonia-specific liver injury. The study is of
relevance to the field as the effects of ammonia on the hepatocytes themselves
is not completely clear. The authors use established HepG2 cell models to show
that hyperammonia induces specific liver injury through an intrinsic
Ca2+independent apoptosis pathway. The design is clear and the methods are
sounds. The conclusions are consistent with the results. I have only minor but
essential comments.
Minor Essential Revisions
The manuscript needs extensive proof-reading and correction by an English
native.
Typos: Line 44, 51, 54, 125, 163, 176, 193, 194, 206, 215, 230, 244, 256, 257,
266
Insert spaces between one paragraph of Results and the other. Sometime the
spaces are there, sometime they are not there. Be consistent.
Line 149: “Add…”. This is not a lab protocol, but the Material&Methods section.
Be consistent between “h” and “hours” throughout the manuscript.
Lines 192-195, 230 are grammatically obscure.
Line 205: a sentence can’t start with “And”.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-151 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Hyperammonia Induces Specific Liver Injury through an Intrinsic
Ca2+-independent Apoptosis Pathway
Version:3Date:27 June 2014
Reviewer: Manlio Vinciguerra
Reviewer's report:
Accept
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-149 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Health Related Quality of Life and its Influence Factors in Patients with
Chronic Gastritis and Peptic Ulcer: A Longitudinal Questionnaire Survey
Version: 2Date:7 October 2013
Reviewer: Risto Roine
Reviewer's report:
A fairly interesting study on a inadequately researched area in gastroenterology,
i.e., health-related quality of life of gastritis and peptic ulcer disease patents.
The methodology used in the study is mostly well described and the data
appears sound. The discussion and conclusions are balanced and supported by
the data. The main limitations of the study are acknowledged and the writing is
mostly acceptable.
There are still some points that the authors could consider to improve the
manuscript:
1. In the results section concerning the change in HRQoL after treatment the text
says “with most domains being increased except of PF”. Looking at the table the
domain PF shows an improvement whereas RP shows deterioration? Please
clarify.
2. Describe how the presence of chronic gastritis and peptic ulcer disease was
verified in the patients.
3. Describe how many patients were excluded due to illiteracy or advanced
disease status.
4. In listing studies having used SF-36 in peptic ulcer patients also consider
referring to the studies by Guse#ndzade MG (Quality of life in patients with
duodenal ulcer. Ter Arkh. 2006;78:38-429), Rudik AA et al. (Eksp Klin
Gastroenterol. 2004;(3):54-7, 104) and Ruda et al. (Patient centred assess-ment
of quality of life for patients with four common conditions. Qual Health Care. 1999
Mar;8:22-9).
5. Please explain the abbreviations used in table 3 in the footnote.
6. Figure 2 seems redundant as the same information is available in table 2.
7. The writing, although mostly adequate, still need some checking and
improvement.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-149 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Health Related Quality of Life in Patients with Chronic Gastritis and Peptic
Ulcer and Factors with Impact: A Longitudinal Study
Version:3Date:27 June 2014
Reviewer: Risto Roine
Reviewer's report:
My concerns and suggestions concerning the original manuscript have been
adequately taken into account in the revised version.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-149 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Health Related Quality of Life in Patients with Chronic Gastritis and Peptic
Ulcer and Factors with Impact: A Longitudinal Study
Version:3Date:30 June 2014
Reviewer: Linda Dirven
Reviewer's report:
HRQoL and its influence factors in patients with chronic gastritis and peptic ulcer:
a longitudinal questionnaire survey
The authors have made considerable revisions to the manuscript as suggested
by the referees. However, some comments are not completely answered. I would
therefore suggest that the authors incorporate some additional amendments.
1) The title suggests that HRQoL is assessed over time, but when looking at the
objectives of the study (last paragraph of the introduction), this is not described
as a goal. This should be added.
2) The authors state in their answers to the reviewer that patients with peptic
ulcers and those with gastritis are combined for the regression analysis. In
addition, they state in their answers that ‘if we can differentiate between the two
diseases, we can further study why, and then take suitable measures to improve
their QOL’. If it is important to identify factors with an impact on HRQoL, shouldn’t
this be done for the two diseases separately? Especially since this is an
explorative study and also because the results show that HRQoL is different for
the two diseases.
3) The authors respond to point 28 that ‘it is common display for multiple linear
regression in statistics with many advantages. It is difficult to give reference
category for continuous and ordered variables, such as age, perceived income’.
First, when looking at table 1, the variables ‘age’ and’ perceived income’ are
presented as categorical variables. It is therefore difficult to see that they are
included as continuous variables in the regression analysis. Maybe it would be
better to report these variables as continuous variables in table 1 as well,
because now it looks contradictive. Moreover, variables that are ordered are also
categorical variables; for this type of analyses, ordered variables should be
included as categorical variables. Lastly, I understand that table 4 and 5 are
based on the output of the analysis, but it would be worth interpreting results
before presenting them in the table. By that I mean that reporting ‘male gender’
instead of ‘gender’ would be more informative. At that moment a reader would
immediately see that females are the reference category and that males have a
better HRQoL. This does not change the results in the table, it is just a matter of
rewording the variables that are described.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-149 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Health Related Quality of Life in Patients with Chronic Gastritis and Peptic
Ulcer and Factors with Impact: A Longitudinal Study
Version:4Date:7 August 2014
Reviewer: Linda Dirven
Reviewer's report:
My additional concerns and suggestions about the manuscript have been
adequately taken into account in this revised version.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-148 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Pharmacologic cholinesterase inhibition improves survival in
acetaminophen-induced acute liver failure in the mouse
Version:1Date:11 February 2014
Reviewer: Mitchell Fink
Reviewer's report:
Major Comments:
1. Although neostigmine pre-treatment prolonged survival, administration of this
drug failed to change outcome. 100% of the animals died irrespective of whether
or not they received neostigmine. The authors need to address this issue. Was
their model too overwhelming? If so, additional studies using a model with lower
mortality would be helpful. Was the dose of neostigmine inadequate? If so,
additional, dose-response studies would strengthen the paper.
2. N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is the current "gold standard" approach for managing
acetominophen overdoses in patients. Thus, it is appropriate to ask whether
survival can be improved adding neostigmine to a treatment regimen based on
administration of NAC.
Minor Comment:
1. Neostigmine is a (reversible) acetylcholinesterase (not acetylcholine) inhibitor.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-148 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Pharmacologic cholinesterase inhibition improves survival in
acetaminophen-induced acute liver failure in the mouse
Version:1Date:19 February 2014
Reviewer: Ali Canbay
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript of Steinebrunner et al. handles an important therapeutical
approach of Acetaminophen (APAP) caused acute liver failure (ALF).
In a mouse model of APAP-induced ALF the authors investigated the
co-treatment with the cholinesterase inhibitor neostigmine as a potential
therapeutic agent in APAP-mediated ALF. BALB/c mice were treated with
neostigmine prior and after APAP-injection. Co-treatment with neostigmine could
improve overall survival rates as well as hepatocellular damage, cell death and
the release of pro-inflammatory mediators such as IL-1# and TNF-#. The study
could show that the cholinesterase inhibitor neostigmine may have a beneficial
effect within the therapy of ALF in a mouse model.
The results are reported in a clear and well-organized manner with established
and adequate methods and exactness.
While the results shown depict an improving role of neostigmine in ALF-therapy it
would be interesting how this cholinesterase inhibitor could probably support the
common therapy with NAC. The authors should include this issue to their
discussion. Furthermore the authors should include a section within the
discussion that focuses more detailed on the role of cell death (apoptosis and
overall cell death) in APAP-induced ALF with an indication of the publication of
Bechmann et. al. (J Hepatol. 2010 Oct;53(4):639-47.) that describe the
supporting role of cell death markers within ALF-therapy and as useful prediction
markers.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-148 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Pharmacologic cholinesterase inhibition improves survival in
acetaminophen-induced acute liver failure in the mouse
Version:2Date:13 August 2014
Reviewer: Mitchell Fink
Reviewer's report:
1. The authors have addressed most of the concerns of the reviewers.
2. The revised paper is improved compared to the original submission.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-145 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Alpha-Fetoprotein Level as a Biomarker of Liver Fibrosis Status in 621
consecutive patients with Chronic Hepatitis B
Version: 1Date:10 September 2013
Reviewer: Anna Pecorelli
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1) Materials and Methods, Patients, second paragraph: there are few data about
study populations’ characteristics , for example: median value of ALT and AST,
percentage of obese patients or patients with metabolic syndrome, diabetes or
dislipedemia are included (these patients in fact could be affected by NASH
which can contribute to liver damage.)
2) Materials and Methods, Patients, second paragraph: how HCC has been
excluded? Which imaging techniques have been used? And which criteria has
been adopted?
3) Materials and Methods, Methods, Liver biopsy and histopathology, first
paragraph: it is no specified if biopsies were made by different clinicians.
Different experience could influence for example the length of the tissue
samples.
4) Materials and Methods, Methods, Liver biopsy and histopathology, first
paragraph: if possible specify the median length of tissue samples. 15 mm is too
small (a length of at least 25 mm is necessary to evaluate fibrosis accurately).
5) Results, Demographic characteristics, first paragraph: patients < 12 years old
should be excluded because the possible different behavior of AFP in child.
6) Results, Demographic characteristics, first paragraph: no data are available on
the HBV infection duration. Specify the median duration of CHB.
7) Results, Demographic characteristics, first paragraph: there are too many
patients in inflammation and fibrosis stage 3-4 (more than half).
8) Results, Correlation of AFP versus liver inflammation and fibrosis stage: insert
a figure with all values of AFP for each stage of inflammation and fibrosis, not
just a table.
9) Discussion, first paragraph: it’s mandatory to evaluate the correlation between
AFP and ALT, AST and Gamma-GT.
10) Discussion, first paragraph: it’s mandatory to evaluate the reproducibility of
AFP test dosages.
11) Discussion, first paragraph: the discussion about age and gender should be
included in the results not in the discussion.
12) Discussion, first paragraph: it is mandatory a multivariate analysis of age and
sex.
13) Discussion, fourth paragraph: it is unacceptable not include ALT values for
each patient, which is an inclusion criterion for the diagnosis of CHB as specified
in the text.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.