JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-26 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Migraine, Fibromyalgia, and Depression Among People With IBS: A Prevalence Study Title: 
 1  23 May 2006 Version: Date: 
 Olafur Palsson Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This ambitious and impressive study is a valuable contribution to the literature on comorbidities in IBS. 
Major strengths are the size of the IBS and control samples (the largest ever in a comorbidity study on IBS), the nature of the patient population (more respresentative of general clinical patients than seen in most studies), and the several ways that the authors control for confounds. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
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) 
None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) None 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-26 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Migraine, Fibromyalgia, and Depression Among People With IBS: A Prevalence Study Title: 
 1  17 June 2006 Version: Date: 
 Giorgio Bedogni Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
As a statistical referee, I was asked to answer the question whether the prevalence odds ratio (POR) is an 
effect measure appropriate for the study of Cole and colleagues. 
I did not read the reviews made by the other 2 referees but I suppose that this request was made because 
POR has been criticized in recent years (mainly) on the basis that that when a disease is common, POR may differ from the prevalence rate (PR). 
However, the fact that POR and PR may differ does not tell us which measure is more appropriate to use. 
This will depend from the study context. 
In prevalence case-control studies, such as that of Cole and colleagues, POR may be considered the 
standard effect measure. 
Thus, I believe that the choice of POR as effect measure for this study is appropriate. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
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) 
IN MANY PLACES 
â€œAn higher prevalence / odds ofâ € is better than â €œan increase in the prevalence / odds ofâ €. 
ABSTRACT 
â€œnon-asthmaâ € is â €œnon-IBSâ € 
BACKGROUND 
â€œRome II criteriaâ €, not â €œRome criteriaâ €. 
METHODS 
Could the choice of a National Insurance Plan as the study population have influenced the generalizability 
of the findings ? 
The Authors should cite some literature supporting the idea that a measure of cost is an acceptable 
surrogate measure of disease severity. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Speaking of causality, the Authors may wish to discuss the limitations of observational studies in detecting 
cause-effect relationships. 
 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:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-26 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Migraine, Fibromyalgia, and Depression Among People With IBS: A Prevalence Study Title: 
 3  26 July 2006 Version: Date: 
 Ami D. Sperber Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I believe that the authors have responded to my comments as well as possible. I recommend acceptance 
for publication of the revised manuscript. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-25 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Reactive Lymphoid Hyperplasia of the Liver in a Patient with Colon Cancer: Report of Two Cases Title: 
 1  19 July 2006 Version: Date: 
 Basilios Papaziogas Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is a interesting manuscript describing two cases of reactive lymphoid hyperplasia in two patients with 
colon cancer. The description of the two cases is complete, as well as the documentation with images. The references are up to date and the discussion focused. I suggest this paper for publication in BMC Gastroenterology. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) In Case 1: Please explain "type-2 tumor" 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests regarding the review of this manuscript
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-25 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Reactive Lymphoid Hyperplasia of the Liver in a Patient with Colon Cancer: Report of Two Cases Title: 
 1  24 July 2006 Version: Date: 
 Dimitrios Filippou Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
It is a well written article refering to very rare (at least not extentenly covered in the literature) cases of a rare 
entity. The paper is written very well and posseses remarkable scientific and educational interest. 
No revisions are required for the manuscript and the figures are acceptable. 
So my conclusion is that is acceptavle for publication without any minor or major revisions. 
 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: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-24 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Rhinosinusitis derived Staphylococcal enterotoxin B plays a possible role in the pathogenesis of food Title: 
allergy 
 1  17 May 2006 Version: Date: 
 Francesca Levi-Schaffer Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The methodology is at the standards of the state of the art. The methodology description is also clear and 
well-written. In conclusion, the methodology is fine. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-22 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Integrative roles of transforming growth factor-alpha in the cytoprotection mechanisms of Title: 
gastric mucosal injury 
 1  5 March 2006 Version: Date: 
 Ki-Baik Hahm Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The manuscript comtains quite well organized and logical results and the athors touched the several 
aspects to prove that TGF-alpha is quite essential in affording the cytoprotection against toxious 
challenge in the stomach. Therefore, as one of the reviewers, I enjoyed the contents and the results 
of the current manuscript except the following minor things to be revised. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
1. The authors should improve the quality of pathological results. Also, the author should request the 
immunostaining to expert in these field. For instance, the quality of nNOS and COX-2 
immunostaining must be improved. 2. Even the procaspase-3 was cleaved into two forms, the procasepase expression in WT seems to 
be similar. Also, some slides of frozen sections should be replaced into the slides containing the 
results. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 description of Introduction is too much long and descriptive. Please reduce the introduction and discussion. 2. Add the the results of COX-1 changes like COX-2 and another Hsp, especially Hsp-27 and 
Hsp-60 in order to have the credits of your observation. 
3. Improve the English. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-22 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Integrative roles of transforming growth factor-alpha in the cytoprotection mechanisms of gastric Title: 
mucosal injury 
 2  6 June 2006 Version: Date: 
 Ki-Baik Hahm Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
--In revised manuscript, there remains still the point of quality of pathological figures and I wonder whether 
the figures's magnificantion is all the same or not (To me, some figures's magnification are not same). 
Please improve those again. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-22 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Integrative roles of transforming growth factor-alpha in the cytoprotection mechanisms of gastric Title: 
mucosal injury 
 2  3 July 2006 Version: Date: 
 Peter Konturek Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
the authors of the manuscript adequately answered my questions in the revised manuscript. I have no more objections and in my opinion this manuscript should be accepted for publication in your journal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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)
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-21 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Factors associated with disease evolution in Greek patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Title: 
 1  25 April 2006 Version: Date: 
 Jacques Cosnes Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
An interesting study of a cohort of Cretan patietns with IBD. The results are those expected, showing that 
Cretan patietns do not differ from other ethnic groups 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
No ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
1Â°page 5: the definition of time of diagnosis is important considering the actuarial calculations from this 
point. In my opinion it should not be "the 1st occasion when the diagnostic criteria were fulfilled" but "the 1st 
demonstration of any macroscopic abnormality of the GI tract". For instance a patient may have an 
undiagnosed ileitis for years, and the diagnosis of CD will be obtained only after surgery. Actually, his 
disease started when ileitis was demonstrated. 
2Â°page 10: change of disease behavior cannot be used as a possible predictor of surgery, 1 because by definition such a criterion cannot be collected at diagnosis and 2 because occurence of a stricture or a 
perforation leads usually per se to surgery 
3Â° page 15: the term "interchangeable penetrating phenotype" is not clear to me 4Â°some statistical points: do not indicate the level of significance in the abstract. P values < 0.001 should be indicated as "P<0.001", hazard ratios as "3.05" or "2.40" (2 decimals). Indicate the name of the system 
used for calculations. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-21 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Factors associated with disease evolution in Greek patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Title: 
 1  17 May 2006 Version: Date: 
 Peter Laszlo Lakatos Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
This study is investigating the changes in disease phenotype during the course IBD in a relatively small 
cohort of Greek patients. Major finding of the study was that in concordance with previous reports patients 
with non-stricturing-non-penetrating disease (B1) were progressing during time, thus this phenotype is 
temporary in some patients. Smoking non-colonic disease were identified as risk factors for behavioral 
change in B1 Crohnâ €™s disease patients. Proximal extension is more common in ulcerative colitis 
patients with proctitis than in those with left-sided colitis. 
Compulsory Comments; 
1. A major limitation of the study is that the patient number (especially in CD) was relatively small to study 
these associations. Based on previous data (e.g Louis et al) a power calculation could be done to demonstrate, how many patients were needed to study these changes. 
2. The follow-up â €œprotocolâ € of the patients is also not defined. Authors should include more details on 
the re-assessment protocol of the patients: when and how were patients re-examined after the diagnosis to 
ensure that no or only limited behavioralâ €“location or extent changes will be missed. By now it seems the 
re-assessment of the patients was only done accidentally. 3. The chapters â €œResultsâ € and â €œDiscussionâ € are way too long. These should be shortened 
significantly (at least by 50%) and focused more on the most important findings. The number of Tables 
should be also lowered. 4. Authors write about 10- and 20-year probability of changing disease phenotype, however this should be interpreted with caution, as only limited number of patients from this cohort were followed-up for long-term. 
In addition no data are available on patient numbers after a specific duration (see comment to Figures 1-3). 
5. Patient numbers should be included to Figures 1-3 at 5-, 10-, 15 and 20 years after IBD diagnosis, also 
the Y-axis should be renamed as â €œProbability of change in disease behaviourâ €, â €œProbability to 
avoid surgeryâ € and â €œProbability of change in disease extentâ € also the X axis to â €œYears from 
IBD diagnosisâ € 
Minor essential revisions; 
1. In the results authors write on the actual risk for cancer. This should be described more precisely, was 
this risk for colorectal cancers? 
Discretionary Revisions; 
1. The expression actuarial is usually not used in this context (actuarial riskâ €¦) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-21 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Factors associated with disease evolution in Greek patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Title: 
 2  6 June 2006 Version: Date: 
 Peter Laszlo Lakatos Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
The revised manuscript was significantly improved, results are much better focusing on important findings. 
Patient selection and re-assessment was also discussed more detailed. 
Compulsory Comments; 
1. Probability of proximal extension in proctitis were noted in 11/62 patients and change in behavior in 3/15 
CD from B2 to B3 altogether, however the â €˜suspected â €˜ low patients numbers after 10 and 20-year 
disease (no data are available on these data in the manuscript) duration led to the relatively high probability 
of changing the extension and behavior, thus these results should be interpreted more cautiously in the 
discussion. 
2. It is compulsory to add A; patient numbers should be included to Figures 1-3 at 5-, 10-, 15 and 20 years 
after IBD diagnosis and B; the Y-axis should be renamed as â €œProbability of change in disease 
behaviourâ €, â €œProbability to avoid surgeryâ € and â €œProbability of change in disease extentâ € 
also the X axis to â €œYears from IBD diagnosisâ €. This can be done if authors use the figures as picture 
format (e.g. jpeg). 
Minor essential revisions; 
1. Table 1. showing Vienna classification should be omitted 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-21 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Factors associated with disease evolution in Greek patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Title: 
 3  22 June 2006 Version: Date: 
 Peter Laszlo Lakatos Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
The revised manuscript was significantly improved, results are much better focusing on important findings. 
The reviewer would like to thank the authors for making all the suggested changes in the Tables and 
Figures that were mainly requested to improve data presentation. 
 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-6-20 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Genetic variability in the precore and core promoter regions of hepatitis B virus strains in Title: 
Karachi
 2  30 January 2006 Version: Date: 
 Fiona Davidson Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
specific comments : 
p7 lns 6 to 9 : were these samples retested and did the control band work in each run? It is correct 
that certain deletion mutations will not be detected by INNOLiPa, these are however quite rare and 
would be worth investigating. 
p7 lns 18 to 19 : a wild type and mutant mix would be detectable by INNOLiPa. The point that the 
authors are trying to make is not clear and the remainder of the paragraph is not very clear either. 
generally : The study and results are sound however the discussion is lacking in emphasis and 
correlation with the clinical relevance of the data. The discussion would be strengthened by 
reference to the finding that ALT values in both groups are similar and lack of clinical signs of 
cirrhosis/disease. The discussion would be improved by considering and refering to the following 
publications 1. Fukada et al. J Pediatr Gastroenerol Nutr 2001;33:301-306. 2. Bozdayi AM et al. J Clin Virol 2001;21:91-101. 3. Davidson et al. Vox Sang 2005;88:87-92. 
Finally, Table 2 could be presented in a more concise manner. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
spelling : p3 ln 13 insert 'a' before serology p3 ln 15 need a capital B in HBeAg 
p3 ln 17 insert the before precore 
p3 ln 21 start paragraph with A instead of The p5 ln 12 change HBsAg to HBeAg p6 ln 25 need a capital B in HBeAg 
p7 ln 10 delete that which is duplicated 
p7 ln 18 insert 'be' before due p7 ln 20 delete like and insert 'such as' 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-20 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Genetic variability in the precore and core promoter regions of hepatitis B virus strains in Title: 
Karachi
 2  28 March 2006 Version: Date: 
 christian trepo Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The paper by Abbas et al, “Genetic variability….” describe the prevalence of hepatitis B virus (HBV genotypes) and mutations in the precore and basal core promoter regions in HBV strains from Pakistan. To this end INNO LIPA assay was used which is the reference for this purpose among 
commercial assays. These results are the first to report genotypes and preC/C mutants from 
Pakistan. The data are clearly exposed and discussed 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
- In the discussion section the authors rely on previous studies on the same topic on patients from 
different regions of the world, they should provide precise numbers and tell how they do estimate their findings as compared to the cited studies. - Same remark concerning precore and BCP variants incidence among Genotype D patients in this 
report as compared to studies from other countries. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
- Mutations results presented in table one may be presented as a figure like histograms or….in order to better visualize the pattern of mutations. - Sequencing may bring complementary and informative data regarding the HBeAg negative cases 
(38%) for which INNOLIPA was not able to detect mutations.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-20 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Genetic variability in the precore and core promoter regions of hepatitis B virus strains in Title: 
Karachi
 2  6 April 2006 Version: Date: 
 Helene Norder Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This paper describes is to my knowledge the first describing genotypes, precore promoter mutants and precore stop mutations of HBV strains from in Pakistan. 109 strains were analysed by the commercially available INNO-LiPA line probe assays. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
The selection criteria of the patients should be given, and is needed for the evaluation of the results. 
The patients should be subdivided into four groups in table 1 before comparing the laboratory data, 
as liver enzymes and clinical cirrhosis. The first subdivision should be as is done between HBeAg 
positive and negative patients. The next subdivision should within each group be between patients 
infected with strains with or without pre-core and/or core promoter mutations, i.e. HBeAg positive patients with and without mutations, and HBe negative patients with and without mutations. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) The number of anti-HBe positive patients should be given. 
The 448 base pair fragment obtained by PCR should be sequenced for the strains infecting the two 
patients, who may have a double infection with strains of genotype A and D. The INNO- Lipa analysis may have given incorrect typing and should be confirmed by sequencing. 
The authors should describe the results with the in-house PCR. 
 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: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-20 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Genetic variability in the precore and core promoter regions of hepatitis B virus strains in KarachiTitle: 
 3  27 April 2006 Version: Date: 
 Fiona Davidson Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The manuscript has been revised in accordance with previous comments, however Table 2 remains 
unchanged. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-20 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Genetic variability in the precore and core promoter regions of hepatitis B virus strains in KarachiTitle: 
 3  9 May 2006 Version: Date: 
 christian trepo Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
We have received the new revised manuscript entitled Â« Genetic variability in the precore and core 
promoter region of hepatitis B virus strains in Karachi Â». This paper is now suitable for publication-since the authors have addressed the main issues raised. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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?:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-19 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Gastrointestinal failure in intensive care: a retrospective clinical study in three different Title: 
intensive care units in Germany and Estonia. 
 3  20 March 2006 Version: Date: 
 Durk Zandstra Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
The major question really is whether gastro-intestinal failure (GIF) can be considered as an 
independent organ failure in itself or can be considered as a seperate clinical entity (whether real 
disease or iatrogenesis) with inherent risks not related to any other type of organ failure. 
In the present study, of retrospective character there seems to be an additional mortality risk in the patients with low SOFA scores (<8)in predominantly postcardiacsurgery patients. This category patients can be complicated by low output syndrome resulting in cardiovascular failure and usually 
intestinal failure follows. GIF can be considered as a proxy parameter for the severity of cardiac 
failure. In the discussion authors should elaborate on this matter. Statistical analysis should made clear that GIF is not related to SOFA 3 and 4 points in the SOFA category for cardiovascular failure. 
Furthermore: the criticism the authors put forward on the Goris score (lack of definitions in the 
gastrointestinal items) holds also true for their proposed score. 
Vomiting: how much how often, what about regurgitation.? 
Gastric retention:what cut-off values are used to discontinue feeding/tube feeding ?. 
Inability to feed: what percentage of target caloric /volumetric intake ? Presence of blood in retention or stools: coffee grounds, bright red blood, positive guaiac test ?? It is also not clear when a patient was considered as a GIF positive patient: only once one of their 
gastrointestinal problems occurred ? or during more consecutive days ? The score used in the study 
is not categorised i.e. GIF severity is not categorised. A gastric retention of 500 ml/24 hours with 400 
ml of feed is as severe as a gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Authors should comment on this matter in 
the discussion. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
Figure 1 the ROC curve can be omitted. Doesnot provide additional information to support the stated 
issues. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 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: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-19 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Gastrointestinal failure in intensive care: a retrospective clinical study in three different intensive care Title: 
units in Germany and Estonia. 
 5  6 May 2006 Version: Date: 
 Bekele Afessa Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I congratulate the authors for their excellent work in revising the manuscript. They have responded to all my 
comments satisfactorily. I have few minor suggestions. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 1. In their response to my comment, the authors have detailed the 47 variables that were analyzed. These 
variables should be mentioned in the methods section of the manuscript. 
2. In the results section of the manuscript, describe which 23 of the 47 variables were associated with GIV 
by univariate analysis. Such information will help future research. 3. The study shows that the development of GIF was an independent risk factor for mortality. The authors 
performed multiple logistic regression analysis with a model including APACHE II, SOFA and GIF. In the 
Results section, they summarized the results of the logistic regression analysis as â €œtrue-positivesâ €, 
â€œtrue-negativesâ € and â €œoverall correctâ €. Since the studyâ €™s main contribution is describing 
association nor real prediction, I suggest deleting the prediction part of the analysis. Table 2 clearly 
describes the odds ratio with the 95% confidence intervals of the variables (APACHE, SOFA and GIF) that 
were entered in the model. Adding the P value for each variable will be important. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 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: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-19 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Gastrointestinal failure in intensive care: a retrospective clinical study in three different intensive care Title: 
units in Germany and Estonia. 
 5  8 May 2006 Version: Date: 
 Durk Zandstra Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The questions put forward in the first reviewers report have received ample attention by the authors and have been incorporated in the revised version of the manuscript. Limitations of the retrospective character and the rather weak GIF definitions are highlighted sufficiently by the authors. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 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) none 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
none 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-19 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Gastrointestinal failure in intensive care: a retrospective clinical study in three different intensive care Title: 
units in Germany and Estonia. 
 5  18 May 2006 Version: Date: 
 Manu Malbrain Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
Comments 
We read with interest the revised manuscript by Reintam et al. We thank the authors for providing point by 
point answers to all of the reviewersâ €™ comments. We agree that the article has been substantially 
improved. 
Abstract 
p2, last sentence: change to: , and to determine its association with ICU mortalityâ € 
p2, line 6: retrospective analysis instead of assessment 
p2, line 17: please indicate which type of admission is associated with GIF 
p2, 4th line from bottom: development of GIF during ICU stay was an independent predictor p3, second last line. However, recent studiesâ €¦ 
p4, first line: and the development (instead of occurrence) of intraabdominal hypertension during ICU stay is 
an independent outcome predictor. 
P5, line 8 â €“ p8 line 2: do not start a sentence with a number 
P6 paragraph 4, line 3: the use of the word respectively does not make any sense here, please omit 
P8 line 5: omit in respective departments 
P9, line 1 please state for what patient profile the odds ratio is given medical or surgical? P9, line 3-5: rephrase provide values for PPV, NPV, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. P9, last paragraph, I donâ €™t understand the meaning of adding subsequent variables into the multiple 
logistic regression model â €“ enter all variables that were higly significant p < 0.01 and see what comes out 
P10, first paragraph can be omitted 
P11, second paragraph, line 8: replace summed up to by was P13, please address the fact that APACHE II score was validated fro hospital mortality while ICU mortality 
was used in your study 
please expand abbreviations when used for the first time and then use abbreviations in a concise way 
throughout the manuscript 
eg p3 second paragraph line 5: GI failure; line 8: gastrointestinal failure, page 4 last line, etcâ €¦ â €“ replace 
by GIF! 
 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: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-19 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Gastrointestinal failure in intensive care: a retrospective clinical study in three different intensive care Title: 
units in Germany and Estonia. 
 6  5 June 2006 Version: Date: 
 Bekele Afessa Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I congratulate the authors for this excellent manuscript. I have no comments. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-19 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Gastrointestinal failure in intensive care: a retrospective clinical study in three different intensive care Title: 
units in Germany and Estonia. 
 6  5 June 2006 Version: Date: 
 Manu Malbrain Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I thank the authors for their comments I suggest to accept the article as it is now ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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)
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-17 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Fecopneumothorax and colopleural fistula - uncommon complications of Crohn's disease Title: 
 1  8 February 2006 Version: Date: 
 Edward Loftus Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Barisic and colleagues report a case of a 27 year old woman who presented with fever, dyspnea, 
fatigue, and cough. She was found to have a large hydropneumothorax on the left side, and 
abdominal ultrasound suggested a mass from the colon to the pleural space. Barium enema showed 
a colonic stricture at the splenic flexure and fistula tracts in communication with the left pleural 
space. She underwent splenectomy, colectomy, and Brooke ileostomy. As far as can be determined 
this is the first case report of its kind in Crohn’s disease. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
1. There are a number of spelling and grammatical errors which should be addressed. The authors should consider enlisting the help of someone who is completely fluent in written English. 2. Please clarify if the patient had a previous diagnosis of Crohn’s disease; if not, please comment 
specifically on whether or not she had experienced gastrointestinal symptoms such as abdominal 
pain, change in bowel habit, or rectal bleeding in the days or weeks leading up to her emergent presentation. 3. Please provide body mass index (BMI) of the patient. Please provide the lab work at presentation 
(hemoglobin, leukocytes, platelets, albumin, sed rate or c-reactive protein). 
4. You mention that the feculent smelling pleural fluid was sent for culture, but you don’t comment further on these results. 5. Please provide more information about the pathological findings—was there transmural 
inflammation, were granulomas present, was the colon strictured at the level of the fistulas, etc? 
6. Please provide more information about the patient’s clinical course following surgery. Was she placed on any medications to prevent recurrence? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 7. Page 3: change “fistulous tubes” to “fistula tracts”. “Brook” should be “Brooke”. “Patohistological” 
should be “Histological” or “Pathological”. 
8. Figure legends. Change “lineal” to “splenic”. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have received research support from: Procter and Gamble, Celltech, Techlab. 
I have consulted for: Prometheus, UCB, Abbott.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-17 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Fecopneumothorax and colopleural fistula - uncommon complications of Crohn's disease Title: 
 1  11 March 2006 Version: Date: 
 mario pescatori Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
thank you for asking me to review this interesting and well written manuscript, which reports on a 
case of colopleural fecal fistula in a patient with Crohn's disease 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) The authors should provide more information on the operation performed (colectomy and Brooke ileostomy). Did they perform a total colectomy with a rectal preservation and a mucous fistula? Or 
did they oversew the rectum leaving the rectal stump in the peritoneal cavity? Or did they perform a 
proctocolectomy? Moreover, if they performed a total colectomy, why not to preserve the right and the transverse colon, and the sigmoid, considering that, according to their decription, only the splenic flexure was 
involved by thye disease? There is general agreement that in Crohn's patient limited resections are 
strongly advised to keep more large bowel thus minimizing the risk of postoperative diarrhoea and incontinence, also in view of further resections possibly due to recurrences? Finally the reference list apperas not to be updated as no article published in the last decade is 
quoted. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) 
 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: 
I declare that I have no competing interests' below
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-17 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Fecopneumothorax and colopleural fistula - uncommon complications of Crohn's disease Title: 
 1  20 March 2006 Version: Date: 
 Giuseppe Brisinda Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
I read with great interest the paper. 
 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: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'