Review for 10.1186/s12876-018-0852-5 (2018)

Reviewer’s report
Title:  Gall bladder wall thickening as non-invasive screening parameter for esophageal varices – a
comparative endoscopic - sonographic study
Version: 0 Date: 29 Apr 2018
Reviewer: KONSTANTINOS C. THOMOPOULOS
Reviewer's report:
1.Page 2 line 38 : "we retrospectively included all patients with hepatic disease"  cirrhotic and non
cirrhotic ;; How the diagnosis of the disease was established ;; I think that only cirrhotic patients should
have been included.
2.Why patients with EV were more commonly male ;; This should be discussed. It would be
possible that many patients in the non EV group did not have cirrhosis.
3.Usually, what is more important for the clinician is not the presence of EV but the presence of
medium and large EV. An analysis with this group of patients should have been performed.
4.In patients and methods section, the authors should define who performed the endoscopies and
the ultrasounds. A single operator or many experienced doctors ;;;
5.In 38 out of 194 patients  the  cause of liver illness was unknown.  I think 19.58 % is higher
than expected.  
6.Did the authors include patients with gallstones (asymptomatic or not)  and or gallbladder
polyps ;;
7.Was the   gall bladder wall thickening affected by the presence or not of ascites ;;;
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an additional 
statistical review?
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation  that  may  in  any  way  gain  or  lose  financially  from  the  publication  of  this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3.  Do you  hold  or  are  you  currently applying  for any patents  relating  to  the  content  of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds or
has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below. If 
your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my
report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report including any 
attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my 
report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments which I do not wish to 
be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments to the editors, which will not
be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal