JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02364-0 (2022)

Title: A self-assessment tool for predicting discomfort and tolerance in Chinese patients
undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy
Version: 2 Date: 28 Nov 2021
Reviewer's report:
This study is interesting to develop tools for predicting discomfort and tolerance for unsedated
EGD in daily practice. The followings are my comments.
#1.  Please provide baseline patient data, including the indication of endoscopy and endoscopy
findings for analysis. Such information might influence subsequent analyzed results, i.e.
patients findings of gastric cancer may require more procedure time and may experience more
discomfort/intolerance.  Inpatient patients may have different underlying diseases and different
indications for EGD procedure which may influence the study outcome.
#2. Do the authors analyze the Operator factor for the patient tolerance/discomfort in the present
study?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02364-0 (2022)

Title: A self-assessment tool for predicting discomfort and tolerance in Chinese patients
undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy
Version: 4 Date: 28 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
Within their revision and the point-by-point response letter , the authors adequately addressed
all requests from the reviewer and revised the manuscript accordingly.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02364-0 (2022)

Title: A self-assessment tool for predicting discomfort and tolerance in Chinese patients
undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy
Version: 4 Date: 24 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Igor Braga Ribeiro
Reviewer's report:
This is a prospective study to try to develop and temporally validate a self-assessment tool to
predict discomfort and tolerance in Chinese patients undergoing EGD.
The study presents sample calculation and registration in the clinical trial. I will make some
comments:
1) I was unable to evaluate the Clinical Trial. From the website: “so sorry! The project you want
to view does not exist or have exceeded the number of views of the day.”.
Authors must send the documentation for evaluation
2) Had the evaluated patients already had the experience of taking the exam? Because I believe
that the first time experience can generate greater anxiety and this influences the result
3) Was the variable “procedure time” evaluated? Because this greatly influences the patient's
tolerance and this needs to be made clear in the text.
4) Were all procedures evaluated the same? Because a simple diagnostic test, such as for
evaluation and collection of biopsies for H. pylori, is different when a malignant neoplasm is
found, for example. And that certainly influences the patient's tolerance.
5) The conclusion of an article responds only to the objective of the article and only. Your
conclusion needs to be corrected.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02364-0 (2022)

Title: A self-assessment tool for predicting discomfort and tolerance in Chinese patients
undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy
Version: 5 Date: 18 May 2022
Reviewer:  Igor Braga Ribeiro
Reviewer's report:
Within their revision and the point-by-point response letter , the authors adequately addressed
all requests from the reviewer and revised the manuscript accordingly.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02341-7 (2022)

Title: Anti-TNF therapy for Ulcerative Colitis in Brazil: a comparative real-world national
retrospective multicentric study from the Brazilian Study Group of IBD (GEDIIB)
Version: 2 Date: 12 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors compared the efficacy and safety of IFX and ADA in a retrospective multicentre
study in Brazil and concluded that IFX has better long-term efficacy. Unfortunately, a number
of methodological errors make it difficult to assess whether the results are correct.
-Since the authors are described as moderate-to-severe UC in Abstract and Methods, it is
inconsistent that the patients with remission to mild patients were included in table 1 . In addition,
the inclusion of a case with an MES of 0 suggests the use of TNF-a agents for extra-intestinal
complications. The use of TNF-a agents for extra-intestinal complications should be excluded
when looking at intestinal symptoms in the first place.
-Figure 1 would be easier to understand if a time series including baseline and week 8 were
shown.
-Efforts should be made to reduce the bias, e.g. propensity score matching, multivariable analysis
using appropriate variants.
-Baseline severity and smoking are not included in the multivariate analysis. On the contrary, it
is strange to adjust for efficacy at 8 and 26 weeks and endoscopic remission.
-There is a lack of how missing values are handled in Methods; more than 20% of cases in each
of the IFX and ADA groups are excluded, which is likely to result in large bias; Patient flow
should be clarified and the authors should consider how missing values occur in each category.
-The conclusion is too long.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02341-7 (2022)

Title: Anti-TNF therapy for Ulcerative Colitis in Brazil: a comparative real-world national
retrospective multicentric study from the Brazilian Study Group of IBD (GEDIIB)
Version: 2 Date: 12 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors reported the results of the use of anti-TNF agents in Brazilian patients with ulcerative
colitis. This is a valuable and interesting paper, as there has been no report of its use in Brazil
until now.
Some modifications are necessary in order to publish this paper.
1) It is stated that the use of biologics precedes the use of anti-TNF agents, how long ago was
this used and what is the formulation used?
2) Infliximab and adalimumab are sometimes switched and both formulations are used, is this
discussed in this study?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02341-7 (2022)

Title: Anti-TNF therapy for Ulcerative Colitis in Brazil: a comparative real-world national
retrospective multicentric study from the Brazilian Study Group of IBD (GEDIIB)
Version: 4 Date: 13 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for revising, the authors have addressed all my concerns.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02341-7 (2022)

Title: Anti-TNF therapy for Ulcerative Colitis in Brazil: a comparative real-world national
retrospective multicentric study from the Brazilian Study Group of IBD (GEDIIB)
Version: 4 Date: 28 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors have revised this article, but the following concern remains unaddressed.
-The authors need to change the inclusion criteria according to the primary outcome, whether
they want to understand the actual situation in Brazil or whether they want to see a change in
UC activity with the use of TNF-a agents.  When they assess the safety of anti-TNF in Brazil,
they can include all patients. However, as the primary outcome is to evaluate the efficacy,  they
should include only active UC patients without EIM.
-In Figure 1, adding the number of patients at each time point is able to make it easier to
understand.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02346-2 (2022)

Title: Management of esophageal perforations in infants by endoscopic vacuum therapy – a
single center case series
Version: 1 Date: 12 Apr 2022
Reviewer:  C Jason Smithers
Reviewer's report:
I think this is a very nice report, and important for the literature.
A couple of observations...
I am curious about "general anesthesia being maintained for the complete time of ongoing EVT
by a team of pediatricians and anesthesiologists."   We have generally  kept patients awake and
with minimal sedation when we have used esophageal vacuum therapy in infants and children.
We have found that the EVT is pretty difficult to dislodge if the suction is maintained.
I am also curious about the short intervals between exchanges, did you also try longer periods
but had trouble.  We have generally exchanged them every 5-7 days.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02351-5 (2022)

Title: Establishment of MELD-lactate clearance scoring system in predicting death risk of
critically ill cirrhotic patients
Version: 1 Date: 18 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
Xin Li et al. conducted a retrospective study using a large intensive care database to develop the
MELD-lactate scoring system for predicting mortality in patients with liver cirrhosis treated on
an intensive care unit. The manuscript deals with an important and timely topic. However, there
are some issues that need to be addressed. Please find my comments below:
- It is recommended that TRIPOD guidelines be followed for the development of scores
for outcome prediction.  Please detail in your methods section whether you followed these
guidelines.
- As described in your results section on page 10:” MELD-#LA score was generated by the
optimal cutoff point for each factor determined via the Youden index. MELD-#LA score was
composed of creatinine, bilirubin, INR, lactate first, #LA and the using history of vasopressors,
and detailed information was given in Table 4.” This is a rather unusual procedure for this
reviewer. Typically, scores for predicting outcomes are generated based on a formula of a
regression model. Therefore, I am not convinced that this score is the ideal prediction model for
this cohort. Please compare the performance of your score with a score based on the formula of
a regression model with metric variables.
- How many patients received a liver transplantation? If this number is high, it is not correct
to use Cox regression models. Liver transplantation is a competing event for death. There are
two possibilities to handle this issue: 1) treat patients who received a liver transplantation as
complete cases (=death) or 2) use Fine and Gray models and treat liver transplantation as a
competing event.
- Please tone the conclusions of your abstract down. The predictive accuracy of the MELD-LA
score is far from excellent with AUROCs ranging between 0.757 – 0.774.
- The discriminative abilities of MELD-#LA and CLIF-SOFA do not differ regarding 28-day,
90-day and 1-year mortality in the total cohort. So, what is the advantage of MELD-#LA and
why should we implement this score into clinical routine practice?
- Please compare your score with the CLIF-C ACLF score in patients with ACLF and with the
CLIF-C AD score in patients without ACLF.
- Please display the calibration of your score.
- There are some typos and the English should be improved.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02351-5 (2022)

Title: Establishment of MELD-lactate clearance scoring system in predicting death risk of
critically ill cirrhotic patients
Version: 1 Date: 02 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Review Gong et al.
Gong and colleagues conducted a retrospective study that investigated the predictive values of
lactate kinetics in ICU patients with liver cirrhosis. Furthermore, they created an easy to apply
scoring tool that predicts mortality and created a MELD-#LA score that was superior to other
established risk scores in predicting mortality in this collective.
The data was obtained not from the authors center, but from an openly available data-base.
Lactate is a well established, easy to use and interpret parameter that is widely available.
Although I like the idea of analyzing the dynamic of a parameter and correlating it with a specific
outcome, there are some major points that need to be addressed:
Major:
1. Please perform a major work-up of the language throughout the whole manuscript.
2. Introduction: Line 53: ICU mortality in patients with cirrhosis is high, but not every study
report’s mortality rates up to 87%. Please consider revising this part and use ranges instead
(studies report ICU mortality from XX% to XX%).
3. The MELD-Na score is also an important scoring tool that needs to be considered and analyzed
in the study. Please add this. Also: Since you used data not from your department, but from an
openly available data-base, please give the information on how the organ-allocation is made.
4. Study eligibility criteria: Line 99+100: ‘Patients over 100 years of age and liver cancer’
I assume the authors excluded patients over 100years and also patients liver cancer. Please
specify. Also illustrate the patient extraction with a consort figure. Did you exclude patients
with extrahepatic malignancy?
5. I don’t understand the definition of critically ill ICU patients (Line 121: critically ill patients
were regarded as patients with liver cirrhosis admitted to the ICU). So every patient was critically
ill?
6. Line 132: All patients were followed for at least 1 year. So you have follow up data from
every patient and there were no drop outs? Please specify.
7. Include the MELD score in your baseline characteristics.
8. Line 182: The authors conclude that a 1% increase lactate associates significantly with the
outcome. From a mathematical standpoint this makes sense. However, I am assume that no
patient had a change of 1% in Lactate. In this context I would like to see an additional figure
showing survival curves dependent on the Lactate changes (e.g. -20% change, 0% change, +20%
change).
9. Also create a survival figure using the MELD-#LA score, to illustrate how the increase of 1,
2 , 3, etc. points impacts survival.
Minor:
1. Discussion: The authors conclude that their score has a better predictive value than the SOFA
Score or the MELD Score. In fact, this is only so in this particular cohort. Since there are no
other studies with this Score, the authors cannot generalize to this timepoint.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02351-5 (2022)

Title: Establishment of MELD-lactate clearance scoring system in predicting death risk of
critically ill cirrhotic patients
Version: 3 Date: 09 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Liu et al. present their revised manuscript. All comments were addressed and the manuscript
has improved substantially. I have no further issues.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02343-5 (2022)

Title: Multicenter epidemiological survey of pneumatosis intestinalis in Japan
Version: 1 Date: 30 Jan 2022
Reviewer:  Paulo Cabrera
Reviewer's report:
Greetings
The aim is clear as the authors claim, to define the clinical features leading to complications and
poor prognosis of PI. Using a multicenter epidemiological survey, they got a standardized data
collection in Japan. 167 patients from 48 intitutions were examined.
The multivariate analysis revealed:
i) two variables were independent predictors of the small-bowel-involved type; older age
(adjusted OR, 1.05 and 95% confidence intervals [CI], 1.02-1.09, P=0.0053) and chronic kidney
disease (adjusted OR, 13.19 and 95% CI, 1.04-167.62, P=0.0468).
ii) Complicating PI was associated with the small-bowel-involved combined type (adjusted OR,
45.49 and 95% CI, 8.34-248.13, P<0.0001), the small-bowel-only type (adjusted OR, 7.90 and
95% CI, 1.92-32.56, P=0.0042), and allopurinol/benzbromaron (adjusted OR, 31.07 and 95%
CI, 1.70-567.28, P=0.0204).
iii) Therapy was as follow: Oxygen therapy was performed in patients with a past history of
bowel obstruction (adjusted OR, 13.77 and 95% CI, 1.31-144.56, 97 P=0.0288) and surgery
was performed in patients with complicating PI (adjusted OR, 8.93 and 98 95% CI, 1.10-72.78,
P=0.0408).
iv) Two variables were associated with exacerbation of PI. Antihypertensives (adjusted OR,
12.28 and 95% CI, 1.07-140.79, 99 P=0.0439) and complicating PI (adjusted OR, 11.77 and
95% CI, 1.053-131.526; P=0.0453)
v) The complicating PI was the only indicator of death (adjusted OR, 14.40 and 95% CI,
1.09-189.48, P=0.0425).
Some patients clinically are asymptomatic while others present severe symptoms of abdominal
pain and diarrhea followed by abdominal distension, nausea, vomit, and bloody or mucous
stool, these is clear in the study. The CT scan is the diagnostic gold standard, and it is
usually used again in patient follow-up. In the study they used other tools for diagnosis as:
endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasonography, CT, plain abdominal roentgenogram, barium enema
roentgenogram, or laparotomy.
The treatment protocol is well clarify in these study.  It has varied  in the last years from a medical
approach to an early surgical intervention. Treatment is often not warranted in asymptomatic
patients as they resolve spontaneously . Symptomatic patients require a medical approach
consisting in: intestinal decompression, parenteral nutrition, fluid and electrolyte repletion, and
in defined cases antibiotics The surgical approach for these patients remains controversial,
especially considering that a delay in the intervention can be harmful.
At the end this study can contribute in important data in a rare pathology, where its etiology is
not that clear. But nevertheless, by methodological type (retrospective) and the way to collect
information generates different biases. The authors list limitations and some biases, these brings
reliability to the study but also opens the door to future prospective studies.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02343-5 (2022)

Title: Multicenter epidemiological survey of pneumatosis intestinalis in Japan
Version: 2 Date: 22 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript was adequately revised.
Lastly, there is one point that should be mentioned. The authors noted that the study aimed
to define the clinical features leading to complications and poor prognosis. However, there is
discordant between the aim of the study and the conclusion. It seems that the outcome of this
study is not correctly described.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02343-5 (2022)

Title: Multicenter epidemiological survey of pneumatosis intestinalis in Japan
Version: 2 Date: 27 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
I would like to thank the authors for the preparation of this excellent manuscript. The comments
to the manuscript are as follows:
Introduction:
1. (Line 114): Given that the authors discuss mortality as a result of PI, consider simply saying
that the pathology ranges from benign to death.
2. (Line  122): The type of PI and pathogenicity is thought to be related, and it may help elaborate
on this section just briefly (explaining primary and secondary PI)
Methods
3. (Line  163): The authors discuss dividing PI into large and small bowel types which is
essentially primary and secondary PI (see comment 2 above). Again, explaining the rationale
behind this separation in the introduction may help readers understand the rationale for the
method sections
Discussion
4. (Line 287):  This paragraph links bowel ischemia with death in PI, however,  based on the
author's data it is unclear if the 8 cases or mortality were linked to mesenteric ischemia. Was
the survey the author used able to determine if the complications used to define complicated PI
(especially in the 8 cases of mortality) all  linked to mesenteric ischemia?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02343-5 (2022)

Title: Multicenter epidemiological survey of pneumatosis intestinalis in Japan
Version: 3 Date: 24 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
I would first like to thank the authors for their dedication and hard work in creating and editing
this manuscript. My comments are as follows:
Introduction: The introduction section could be more consistently arranged. In its current form,
the authors discuss what PI is, where it is found, prognosis, mechanism, prognosis (again),
classification, and mechanism (again).  This should be arranged in a manner that flows: what is
PI, review the classification system (which includes the proposed mechanisms), and then discuss
prognosis and why this paper is important to help us further understand how to prognosticate
cases where PI is discovered.
- Line 112: Consider rewording “benign outcome” as this could mean that with aggressive
treatment there was no increased mortality or (and what is more likely) the authors mean that
PI spontaneously resolves. For example: the clinical significance of PI varies from an incidental
finding that resolves spontaneously to death.
Patients and Methods: overall, this section is well done. I think it may be beneficial to define
chronic kidney disease given that it is one of the key findings in this paper. If the stage is
unknown (if this data was generated by selecting CKD on the questionnaire), then I would
include that fact in the discussion on limitations because there could potentially be a significant
difference in patients with CKD stage 2 vs 5 (which the authors later allude to in line 262). In
a similar sense, grouping all “laxatives” as one may be confounding, as lactulose has been well
implicated in causing PI, whereas most other laxatives have not.
Discussion: Again, an overall well-done section. I think the limitations section could probably
be elaborated on. Especially as above (in regards to CKD).
- Line 238: If you alter the beginning of the sentence “A prospective multicenter study…” to
include “These results support the findings of another prospective multicenter study…” it would
help the reader easily understand the importance of this study in relationship to the others. This
is done later in the paragraph, but there is some initial confusion at the abrupt transition.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02360-4 (2022)

Title: Two differentially methylated region (DMR) networks in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,
viral hepatitis, and hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 1 Date: 06 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
The study is interesting and well-designed. In the study, the author provided two differentially
methylated region (DMR) networks in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, viral hepatitis, and
hepatocellular carcinoma. The results suggest that one DMR network was associated with
fibrosis and tumorigenesis in both NAFLD and viral hepatitis, while the other network was
specifically associated with NAFLD progression. FABP1, SGK2, and HNF4A could be possible
candidate targets for the prevention and treatment of HCC. The idea of this article is innovative
enough. Meanwhile, there are some minor concerns in the manuscript.
1. At present, there are many methods for predicting the prognosis or demonstrating the
association of HCC through bioinformatics and statistical methods, but few can be used in
clinical practice. The DMR networks in the manuscript proposed by the author are also very
good. However, it is difficult to evaluate the advantages over other research results, and
the author should supplement some advantages or the latest related research progression the
discussion section.
2. Although there are obvious advantages in data analysis and results, but it lack actual clinical
utility. If the verification of the results of FABP1, SGK2, and HNF4A in liver cancer cell lines
and liver cancer tissues in vitro and in vivo are conducted based on the author's results, the article
may be even more credible.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02360-4 (2022)

Title: Two differentially methylated region (DMR) networks in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,
viral hepatitis, and hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 1 Date: 10 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
The study identified the NAFLD-specific DMR network 1 and DMR network 2, which was
present in NAFLD, viral hepatitis, and HCC. In addition, the study also determined that the
methylation levels of DMR network 2 changed cooperatively and/or synergistically during the
development of HCC. The above provide new insights into the pathogenesis of HCC, with
FABP1, SGK2, and HNF4A being candidate targets for the prevention and treatment of HCC.
This paper has good reference value and is recommended to be employed.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02362-2 (2022)

Title: A nomogram for predicting survival in patients with advanced (stage III/IV) pancreatic
body tail cancer: A SEER-based study
Version: 1 Date: 22 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
1. The English of this manuscript must be improved before resubmission.
2. Is PTBC a recognized subtype of the PDAC disease? Apart from the location, are there other
differences such as pathologic types? Why analyze it separately?
3. In your analysis, there is no radiation  in nomogram, and do you think this result may influence
the treatment to PTBC?
4. It seems there are different molecular features and histological types of PTBC and other
pancreatic cancer. Could you afford further elaboration to show the necessity of the article?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02362-2 (2022)

Title: A nomogram for predicting survival in patients with advanced (stage III/IV) pancreatic
body tail cancer: A SEER-based study
Version: 1 Date: 29 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors investigated a predictive nomogram based on SEER database for PBTC survival.
There are several comments to be addressed.
1. In page 5 line 12-13, the authors mentioned that they used AJCC 7th TMN stage in this study.
AJCC 8th could predicted the prognosis more precisely than AJCC 7th, So why not the authors
manually adjusted to AJCC 8th in this study?
2. In Table.2, it is confused that N stage and chemotherapy had no effect on survival in univariate
analysis, but they were independent factors after multivariate analysis. It is unclear that this
is caused by other confounding factors in or multi-collinearity factors. Multi-collinearity bias
should be excluded before multivariate analysis.
3. It would be better to enrolled another external validation cohort (non-American patient cohort
would be better) to validate the predictive value.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02362-2 (2022)

Title: A nomogram for predicting survival in patients with advanced (stage III/IV) pancreatic
body tail cancer: A SEER-based study
Version: 3 Date: 14 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors had  explained previous questions in response letter and there is no other issue that
need to be addressed.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02362-2 (2022)

Title: A nomogram for predicting survival in patients with advanced (stage III/IV) pancreatic
body tail cancer: A SEER-based study
Version: 3 Date: 29 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript helps to deepen doctors' understanding of PTBC. PTBC is indeed a rare but
note-worthy pancreatic cancer in clinic practice. It is different from pancreatic head carcinoma
in location, blood supply, symptoms and pathological types, but the prognosis and molecular
features between the two are still unclear. This study focuses on the prognosis model of PTBC,
which is very meaningful, and might be better to provide the clinical-pathology characteristics
and survival analysis between PTBC and PHC in this or later research.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02359-x (2022)

Title: Efficacy and Safety of Chemoradiation Therapy Using One- Shot Cisplatin via Hepatic
Arterial Infusion for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Major Macrovascular Invasion:
a Single-arm Retrospective Cohort Study
Version: 1 Date: 19 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
The author reported the efficacy of chemoradiation therapy using One-Shot Cisplatin for
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Major Macrovascular Invasion. This regimen is an
important strategy for unresectable HCC with macrovascular invasion. However, there were
serious problems in this manuscript.
(1). Author mentioned that “Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the safety and
efficacy of one-shot CDDP via HAI combined with RT for patients before systemic
chemotherapy.” (Introduction, Page 2, line 62-63). But, many people with poor liver function
(Child-Pugh class B, or ALBI grade 3) are registered in this study. Indication for systemic
chemotherapy is good liver function.
(2). In Figure 2, the number of PR patients is 20, However, the number of PR patients is 19.
Please clarify.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02359-x (2022)

Title: Efficacy and Safety of Chemoradiation Therapy Using One- Shot Cisplatin via Hepatic
Arterial Infusion for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Major Macrovascular Invasion:
a Single-arm Retrospective Cohort Study
Version: 1 Date: 23 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is a retrospective study reporting the effects of chemoradiation with one-shot CisPt HIA
for HCC with macrovascular invasion. This is a very interesting approach for these patients
who exhibit a very bad prognosis due to the vascular invasion. Nevertheless, there are many
limitations:
1) It is a retrospective study with a small population
2) The observation period is very long (16 years!). During this time, many improvements have
occurred in diagnosis and treatment
3) A major bias is the “over-selection” of patients evaluated in this study. Indeed, it is very rare
for HCC patients with major macrovascular invasion to have preserved liver function and PS 0/1
4) Response was assessed with mRECIST and not with RECIST 1.1. It is mandatory to have
the RECIST 1.1 assessment. The best ORR is 16% and therefore lower than expected results
with new systemic regimens with CPI
5) Description of adverse events is very poor: no information about leukopenia, renal
insufficiency,…
Based on these comments, we cannot draw clear conclusions about safety and efficacy of
chemoradiation and therefore cannot publish this work.
My suggestion for improve your study are:
1) Safety and feasibility should be the primary evaluation criteria. You must describe in more
detail the AEs and also describe the manner and the period of collection of these AEs
2) Response should also be evaluated with RECIST 1.1 The range for the median time of first
evaluation must be added
3) The type and time of initiation of additional systemic therapy should be defined
4) English should be improved
5) References in the text are not always adequate
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02359-x (2022)

Title: Efficacy and Safety of Chemoradiation Therapy Using One- Shot Cisplatin via Hepatic
Arterial Infusion for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Major Macrovascular Invasion:
a Single-arm Retrospective Cohort Study
Version: 3 Date: 08 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
The article was well revised according to reviewer's suggestion.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02355-1 (2022)

Title: No significant relationship exists between tumor size and prognosis in distant metastatic
hepatocellular carcinoma#a propensity score matching analysis based on SEER database.
Version: 1 Date: 17 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
When speaking about HCC prognosis, an important aspect that should be commented it is about
post-recurrence survival. THis should be commented in the discussion, citing this paper (PMID:
25085684).
Some comments on the eventual impact of adjuvant therapies on HCC prognosis should be
provided. In this regard, cite : PMID: 25974743
Finally, comment also briefly the impact of some comorbidities on HCC occurrence and
prognosis, citing this paper: PMID: 23845075
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02355-1 (2022)

Title: No significant relationship exists between tumor size and prognosis in distant metastatic
hepatocellular carcinoma#a propensity score matching analysis based on SEER database.
Version: 1 Date: 17 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors used the SEER database. This should be made explicit in the title.
In the methods, when describing the propensity score approach, add a citation on some paper
using the same approach (for example PMID: 25910664)
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02355-1 (2022)

Title: No significant relationship exists between tumor size and prognosis in distant metastatic
hepatocellular carcinoma#a propensity score matching analysis based on SEER database.
Version: 4 Date: 26 Nov 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript by Xie et al regarding the impact of
tumor size on the prognosis of distant metastatic HCC
1.As authors concludes, the tumor size is not an independent prognostic factor for distant
metastatic HCC. why is it so important to this study? It may be good to add a few more details
to explain it in order to support the research question.
2.As authors mentioned, the study is based on SEER database, and the results should be limited
to American patients, instead of Asia or Europe, which should be commented.
3.How were the variables included in the propensity score chosen? caliper width#
4.The authors conduct a multivariate Cox regression in the matched cohort (Table 3). This MVA
includes variables that are also included in the PSM. This should not be done.
5.Data error in abstract (P=0.06). Title Error in Figure 3.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02355-1 (2022)

Title: No significant relationship exists between tumor size and prognosis in distant metastatic
hepatocellular carcinoma#a propensity score matching analysis based on SEER database.
Version: 4 Date: 07 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
To the authors:
“No significant relationship exists between tumor size and prognosis in distant metastatic
hepatocellular carcinoma#a propensity score matching analysis based on SEER database”
My comments are as follows.
1. In the analysis of propensity score matching, how did you set the caliper value and calculate
the propensity scores (mean ± SD)?
2. In the characteristics of the distant metastatic HCC patients, there is only a significant
difference in the T factor, even after propensity score matching. You should re-analyze with the
caliper value lowered.
I hope that my comments will be useful in improving the article.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02355-1 (2022)

Title: No significant relationship exists between tumor size and prognosis in distant metastatic
hepatocellular carcinoma#a propensity score matching analysis based on SEER database.
Version: 6 Date: 07 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
Table 3 is a statistical mistake. Multivariate Cox regression analyses of prognostic factors should
not includes variables that are also included in the PSM.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02355-1 (2022)

Title: No significant relationship exists between tumor size and prognosis in distant metastatic
hepatocellular carcinoma#a propensity score matching analysis based on SEER database.
Version: 7 Date: 03 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Table 3 is a statistical mistake and the author still doesn't understand PSM very well.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02355-1 (2022)

Title: No significant relationship exists between tumor size and prognosis in distant metastatic
hepatocellular carcinoma#a propensity score matching analysis based on SEER database.
Version: 7 Date: 18 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Overall, this is a well written paper that describes how a propensity
analysis to study the question as to whether tumor size is related to survival time in patients who
have distant metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) observed.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
After propensity analysis, the sample size sizes in the two groups that are formed by the tumor
size are overall relatively small, under 200 in each group.
Another issue are that the odds ratio turned out to be 1.2 with a confidence interval including 1.0.
This could be due to relatively small sample size.  A statistical power analysis would be helpful."
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02350-6 (2022)

Title: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (with videos):
a single center retrospective study
Version: 2 Date: 15 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
I think this is an excellent paper comparing UEMR and ESD for NETs. I hope that my comment
is useful for the improvement of the article.
1) (Page 4, Line 6) The authors described there is no clinical evaluation on UEMR in the
resection of rectal NETs. However, there are already three published papers about UEMR for
NETs. (PMID: 29344571, PMID: 31904380, PMID: 34133614) However, those papers did not
compare to ESD, did not follow up properly, and did not examine symptoms and costs, so the
authors' should just mention this point.
1) (page 3 line 16) The author described the probability of lymph node metastasis in #10 mm
rectal NETs is low. Please provide a reference.
2) (page 4, line 20) Was the diagnosis confirmed by a preoperative biopsy?
3) (page 4, line 25) Please provide the number of EMR experiences of the endoscopists.
4) (page 2, line 10, 95.5%) and (page 9, line 25, Therefor) is misspelled.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02350-6 (2022)

Title: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (with videos):
a single center retrospective study
Version: 2 Date: 22 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Shi H, et al. investigated a single center retrospective comparative study of underwater
endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for rectal
neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) #10 mm. Their results revealed that both the UEMR and
ESD can effectively treat #10 mm rectal NETs with invasion depth confined to the mucosa
and submucosa. Then, UEMR is superior to ESD in operation time, hospitalization time,
operation cost, postoperative abdominal pain and abdominal distention. Their conclusions were
acceptable, but I would like to some suggestions to improve their manuscripts.
Major comments
1) Some pathological diagnosis were important to evaluate curability of endoscopic resections.
Authors should clarify which pathological criteria used in this study, e.g. WHO 2019 and add
appropriate reference about it in method section. Grade of NETs (1-3) and lymphovascular
invasions were very important risk factors about metastases, so please clarify data of them.
2) In discussion methods, comparison of UEMR and other EMR methods were insufficient.
Endoscopic submucosal resection with ligation device (ESMR-L) and endoscopic mucosal
resection with cap (EMR-C) were considered effective and safe methods. Authors should fully
discussed about difference of them and UEMR in discussion section.
Minor comments
1) In abstract (P2, L6), #10 mm seemed to be a mistake. Please correct it to #10 mm which
used in main text.
2) In abstract (P2, L10), the histological complete resection rate of ESD was 96.4% based on
main result. Please correct it.
3) In methods section (P4,L10-18), a paragraph of “General information should be transferred
to results section.
4) In methods section (P5, L 2 and L18), please clarify two experienced endoscopists performing
UEMR and ESD were same or not.
5) In methods section (P6, L10), was microscopic hemostasis correct? I think endoscopic
hemostasis was correct. Please check it.
6) About figure legends of Figure 2. Explanations of each figures were insufficient. Please
explain each figures with numbering them.
7) About table 2, operation cost were written using yuan. Using USD seemed to be easy to
understand for most of readers.
8) Yamashina T, et al. published a first case series about UEMR for rectal NETs in Endoscopy
international open (EIO)(2018; 6: E111-4). Please refer it in discussion section.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02356-0 (2022)

Title: I-125 seeds brachytherapy with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for subcapsular
hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 0 Date: 06 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
To the authors:
“I-125 seeds brachytherapy with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for subcapsular
hepatocellular carcinoma”
My comments are as follows.
1. How did you calculate Age and Diameter in Table 1? If you used the mean for them, you
should describe the standard deviation, if you used the median for them, you should describe
the range.
2. Please show the rationale for setting the cut-off value of AFP to 400 ng/mL.
3. There is no indication for TACE in patients with BCLC stage A. Please analyze focus on
BCLC stage B-C.
I hope that my comments will be useful in improving the article.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02356-0 (2022)

Title: I-125 seeds brachytherapy with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for subcapsular
hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 0 Date: 14 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is a retrospective study with 64 patients enrolled. 32 patients received TACE +
brachytherapy and 32 patients received TACE alone. Several points should be confirmed.
Q1.
Methods: did the authors perform a biopsy on each case according to their diagnosis criteria? If
all the cased were subcapsular HCCs, how to avoid seeding during the biopsy?
Q2.
Methods: how about the size of the microcatheter, and the selectivity of TACE injection?
Q3.
Result: there was a significant difference in the percentage of HBsAg (+) between two groups,
how many patients received antiviral therapy in each group?
Q4.
Result: all patients (n=4) with extrahepatic metastasis in the combined group, how about the
statistic method to manage this problem?
Q5.
Fig.2 The tumor in Fig.2 might not locate at the subcapsular region (<1cm), right? May I have
a coronal view to confirm?
Q6.
Overall. Can the author explain why the benefit of combined therapy in PFS can’t be converted
to OS?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02352-4 (2022)

Title: Serum O-glycosylated hepatitis B surface antigen levels in patients with chronic hepatitis
B during nucleos(t)ide analog therapy
Version: 1 Date: 04 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
This study has raised an innovative serological detection method for HBV virus content. A
new Elisa kit was designed to detect O-glycosylated M-HBsAg using the specific recognition
recombinant antibody. Although the structure and writing manner of the manuscript are quite
appropriate, several critical experimental design flaws should be resolved before publication.
Major concern#
1. Due to the O-glycosylation of the PreS2 domain of middle HBsAg protein has been identified
as a distinct characteristic of genotype C HBV virions, the detection of genotype A, B and D
HBV virus is still limited.
1. In the comparison before and after NA therapy, Wilcoxon signed rank test was applicable to
non-normal distribution continuous variables, which required normality analysis of variables,
and paired T test was required if the variables met normal distribution.
2. As described by the authors, O-glycosylated HBsAg levels reflects the combined serum HBV
DNA and RNA virion levels. Why not comprehensively analyze the correlation between the
combined virion levels and O-glycosylated HBsAg levels before and after NA therapy?
3. After 48 weeks of NA therapy, HBV DNA is no longer associated with o-glycosylated HBsAg
levels, which may limit its assessment of viral replication capacity after NA therapy.
Minor concern#
1. The manuscript did not mention specific inclusion or exclusion criteria and detailed
information for patients.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02352-4 (2022)

Title: Serum O-glycosylated hepatitis B surface antigen levels in patients with chronic hepatitis
B during nucleos(t)ide analog therapy
Version: 2 Date: 25 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
This study aimed to evaluate serum O-glycosylated HBsAg levels in patients with chronic
hepatitis B treated with nucleostide analogs. On the whole, this article was well revised.
However, the language should be seriously revised. Some comments are also listed as follows.
Comment 1: The authors should specify the treatment indications for the subjects in the article
rather than only cite “The guidelines of the Japanese Society of Hepatology” in Line 89.
Comment 2: The authors should check the data carefully. In Table 1, the percentages of Males
were calculated incorrectly in the HBeAg positive column and HBeAg negative column. In
addition, the authors should adjust the format of the Table 1 to make it look fine.
Comment 3: The authors should check the words in the manuscript carefully. For example,
“patent” should be revised as “patient” in Line 263.
Comment 4: The authors have not yet answered whether this study has potential application in
predicting HBsAg seroclearance.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02352-4 (2022)

Title: Serum O-glycosylated hepatitis B surface antigen levels in patients with chronic hepatitis
B during nucleos(t)ide analog therapy
Version: 2 Date: 01 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is a very detailed and integrated supplement. Every question I concerned has been well
explained. After modification, this manuscript has been logically complete and has good clinical
value. The serum O-glycosylated HBsAg might be a potential biomarker for monitoring safe
discontinuation of NA therapy similar to the serum HBV RNA. It is worthy of academic
discussion.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02352-4 (2022)

Title: Serum O-glycosylated hepatitis B surface antigen levels in patients with chronic hepatitis
B during nucleos(t)ide analog therapy
Version: 3 Date: 11 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for revising the manuscript. This manuscript has been modified in detail. I have no
other comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02345-3 (2022)

Title: The Effect of Nafamostat Mesilate Infusion after ERCP for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis
Version: 1 Date: 02 Nov 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I find your paper interesting since you have focused on the high risk patients. It would be
interesting to see results of prospectice randomised control trial, since (as you have also noticed)
this is retrospective review of avaiable data with potentiel bias. Also, you have high incidence
of PEP (17.4%) probably because the focused group is high risk patient - maybe that would be
good to explain in paper.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02345-3 (2022)

Title: The Effect of Nafamostat Mesilate Infusion after ERCP for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis
Version: 1 Date: 26 Nov 2021
Reviewer's report:
On a page 5/17  "Study design ant patients" in a paragraph two, third sentence  starts with the
word "Nafasmotat" . Please correct the word to "Nafamostat".
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02345-3 (2022)

Title: The Effect of Nafamostat Mesilate Infusion after ERCP for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis
Version: 1 Date: 28 Feb 2022
Reviewer:  Jorge Canena
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors
An interesting insight on the use of nafamost mesylate
Some suggestions for revision
1-In study design please clarify that there is a control group and also clarify how it was created.
Please add clarification how the is a big difference in the number of patients in each group.
2-I do suggest that in therapeutic group the authors analyze the number of patients with one risk
factor, two risk factors, etc for each group. After doing that find the mean and standard deviation
of the number of risk factors for each group and then find out if that is statistically significant and
this is important to see if the groups are comparable. I do understand the process of matching,
but it would be interesting to see the result of what I propose
3-Please provide a multivatiate analysis for severe PEP to see if nafamost is an independent
protective factor. The multivariate analysis of risk factors for PEP should be delected as it is
of no use
4- In the discussion please be more specific in showing that a severe pancreatitis was 5 in one
group and 6 in other and if despite statistical significance this is not important
5-suggest a randomized trial in proposed studies
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02345-3 (2022)

Title: The Effect of Nafamostat Mesilate Infusion after ERCP for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis
Version: 3 Date: 08 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors, I am very glad to see that you have accepted revision suggestions. I stand by my
opinion that it is interesting  paper, especially because you have focused on high risk patients
group.