JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03206-x (2024)

Title: Development and Validation of a 13-Item Short Version of the Inflammatory Bowel
Disease Self-Efficacy Scale
Version: 0 Date: 11 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Welmoed K. van Deen
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, the authors describe the development of a shorter version of the IBD-
SES. The study is generally well-described. However, I have some questions regarding the
methodology as described below (among others).
1. Introduction: A couple of key-considerations are missing in the introduction that would
strengthen the rationale for this study.
- What is the relation between self-management (first paragraph) and self-efficacy (second
paragraph)
- What is the impact of reductions in self-management on relevant (patient) outcomes?
- When and why do you need to measure self-efficacy levels. What can you do with this
information?
- In what context would a shorter instrument be useful?
2. Introduction line 55-60: unclear why the authors discuss ways to measure success of treatment,
while discussing self-management. I believe this part can be removed.
3. Methods – study design: more information is needed about the data used. Was this longitudinal
or cross-sectional data? Was an intervention tested in the study?
4. Methods – Item reduction: why were these three steps chosen to reduce the items and not other
quality measures of the sub-items (e.g., content validity, factorial validity)? How was it ensured
that various domains within the broader concept of self-efficacy remained covered? Were there
any requirements as for the number of items that remained within each sub-scale?
5. Methods line 95-96: “If the mean ± standard deviation (SD) of the scores for an item exceeded
the scale’s range” – this step is unclear, how can the mean exceed the range?
6. Methods line 99-100: “items that were less relevant to the main concept of the subscale were
eliminated.” – how was ‘relevance’ determined? Who determined this?
7. Methods line 100-103: how was data collected to do this? Did all participants fill out the
survey twice? A subset? What happened in between these two weeks? Also see comment #3.
8. Results – descriptive characteristics: I am missing an overview of the IBD-SES, subdomains
and subitems (mean, SD, range, etc). I would also like to see the results of the item reduction
steps (e.g., correlation coefficients, ICC’s, etc.)
9. Results p130-131: it’s stated that “on the basis of our interpretation of the main concepts
contained within each subscale of the original IBD-SES”. How did you determine what these
main concepts were?
10. Discussion: I am missing a reflection regarding limitations due to the methods selected for
item-reduction (also see comment 4)
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03206-x (2024)

Title: Development and Validation of a 13-Item Short Version of the Inflammatory Bowel
Disease Self-Efficacy Scale
Version: 0 Date: 30 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
Fascinating manuscript in the context of providing a shortened version of  IBD-SES  for use in
routine practice. However, some points are needed for further clarification.
1. The authors used a specific technique for item reduction. I believe it would be beneficial for
the reader to know how they selected this methodology. Please justify and add a reference
2. Two-week recall period is rather short. Why did the authors select this time point? Please
justify
3. The measuring properties of the shortened version were not evaluated to their full extent. For
example, I did not find all the aspects of validity investigated. Does this matter? If yes please
add or discuss under the limitations. Also is there any minimal important change, measurement
error etc that the reader might find useful to know
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03206-x (2024)

Title: Development and Validation of a 13-Item Short Version of the Inflammatory Bowel
Disease Self-Efficacy Scale
Version: 1 Date: 19 Feb 2024
Reviewer:  Welmoed K. van Deen
Reviewer's report:
All comments were addressed appropriately. I have no additional comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03273-0 (2024)

Title: COVID-19 Vaccination Safety and associated Health Care Utilization among Adults with
Inflammatory Bowel Disease – A population-based self-controlled case series analysis
Version: 1 Date: 12 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
Lee and colleagues performed a population-based study using a clever self-controlled case series
design to assess the safety of sequential COVID-19 vaccines in patients with IBD compared to
self over time, and healthy controls. These data are reassuring that COVID-19 was not associated
with an increase in AESIs (adverse events of special interest) or IBD health care utilization,
demonstrating the safety of COVID-19 vaccines on a population level.
Major Comments
1) Was any difference seen between which vaccines a patient received? Some data has shown
a higher rate of certain adverse events, such as myocarditis after the mRNA-1273 as compared
to BNT162n2, and Guillain-Barre after the J&J vaccine (JNJ-78436735 in the USA) compared
to the mRNA vaccines. This would also be pertinent given the finding of increased ED visits
after the 2nd dose (as the mRNA-1273 vs BNT162n2 have 3 vs 2 shot regimens) Can consider
stratifying the findings based on vaccine type in a supplementary table to assess the difference
2) Were medication prescriptions not available in the database used for this study? Would be
useful to help stratify baseline IBD disease severity and as a IBD-related healthcare outcome
(e.g. use of corticosteroids or change in biologic)
3) Was timeframe of vaccination and correlation to “waves” of the pandemic in Canada
considered? This would be important to account for, given that surges of COVID-19 during the
pandemic and subsequent lockdowns may have greatly impacted rates of certain outcomes such
as outpatient or ED visits.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03273-0 (2024)

Title: COVID-19 Vaccination Safety and associated Health Care Utilization among Adults with
Inflammatory Bowel Disease – A population-based self-controlled case series analysis
Version: 1 Date: 23 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
Overall interesting paper on COVID-19 vaccination safety employing a self-controlled case
series which has been previously used in vaccine safety studies. Please find my comments to
the authors below.
1) I think it would be useful to describe the self-controlled case series analysis in a bit more
detail in the materials and methods section.
2) Secondary outcomes studies included IBD-related visits. As mentioned on the material and
methods section, those were defined by either a diagnostic code specific for IBD, or codes related
to signs, symptoms and EIM of IBD. However, looking through the supplementary tables, it
looks like there were codes included that are not necessarily related to IBD such as dysphagia,
peptic ulcer etc. Can the authors please comment on that and how this might have affected results.
3) Could the authors please comment on the use of standardized difference and not p-values for
comparisons between IBD and non-IBD populations. This needs to be described in methods too.
4) Finally, I think all tables of the paper need to be reformed. Their current size seems too big.
Plus tables 2,3 and 4 include a section combining all cause hospitalization and ED visits which
I think could be moved to supplementary material as these results are not mentioned at all in
the results section.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03273-0 (2024)

Title: COVID-19 Vaccination Safety and associated Health Care Utilization among Adults with
Inflammatory Bowel Disease – A population-based self-controlled case series analysis
Version: 2 Date: 19 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you to the authors for replying to the previous review comments and making the necessary
amendments. I have no further comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03273-0 (2024)

Title: COVID-19 Vaccination Safety and associated Health Care Utilization among Adults with
Inflammatory Bowel Disease – A population-based self-controlled case series analysis
Version: 2 Date: 20 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for addressing this reviewer's comments - understanding that these are limitations of
the dataset that was utilized, these data are impactful and reassuring that sequential COVID-19
vaccination is safe in patients with IBD.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03275-y (2024)

Title: Design and Evaluation of a Colon Cancer Mobile Application
Version: 2 Date: 14 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors, the manuscript entitled "Design and Evaluation of a Colon Cancer Mobile
Application" investigates the impacting topic of CRC screening awareness in the general
population. I think the efforts made to develop the app and test it are appreciable. However,
some major points need to be addressed:
- Introduction: at the end of the section the aim is not clear and should be reformulated (try to
find a more specific way to explain your research)
- Methods:
1) How was the population selected? Did you involve patients in screening age?
2) How was self-assessment awareness evaluated? Was it done through a validated
questionnaire?
3) What was the primary outcome of the study?
- Results:
1) please report p-values (not just > or < 0.05)
2) Is the distribution of your results normal? How have you used the Mann-Whitney U test for
dichotomous variables? Please provide a more specific explanation of the statistical analysis.
3) Have you performed an analysis based on instruction level and/or occupation? The data are
present in the dataset, but not in the paper or tables.
4) Is the distribution of age normal? If so, did you include also patients in their thirties? I think
the application is not intended for young people.
Regards
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03275-y (2024)

Title: Design and Evaluation of a Colon Cancer Mobile Application
Version: 2 Date: 03 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
Amir Sadeghi and colleagues performed a clinical randomized trial to evaluate the effect of
using a colon cancer mobile application on the early detection of colorectal cancer. Although
other similar studies evaluating the use of mobile apps in oncological setting have already been
published, this is a randomized trial that deserves evaluation for potential publication, after some
revision as follows:
1) Data Analysis. Mann-Whitney U test was used, although in the text the data are expressed as
mean and standard deviation (SD). Please report data using the median with IQR-range.
2) Results. In Tables 1 and 2, the results of the mean and SD were reported, although a rating
scale is lacking. Moreover, in Table 3 data from age were not reported. It would be interesting
to perform a subgroup analysis stratifying results for age (e.g., > 65 years), as elderly patients
are often less skilled at using mobile apps.
3) Discussion. "Participation in colorectal cancer screening by stool testing remains below the
target of 60% in many Canadian provinces". Please explore data also regarding other countries
such as Europe, USA, etc.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03265-0 (2024)

Title: Omeprazole taken once every other day can effectively prevent aspirin-induced
gastrointestinal mucosal damage in rats
Version: 3 Date: 29 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
(1) Due to the requirement of normality assumption for the application of the ANOVA test
and considering the small sample size (n=8) in this study, it is necessary to perform a Shapiro-
Wilk test beforehand to confirm the normal distribution. Alternatively, the ANOVA test may be
replaced with the Kruskal–Wallis test if the normality assumption is not met.
(2) The mechanism of proton pump inhibitors involves the inhibition of H-K-ATPase, the final
step in gastric acid secretion by parietal cells.  Please elucidate the plausible mechanism behind
the significantly higher cell proliferation ability observed in the Asp + Ome qd group compared
to both the Asp + Ome qod group and the Asp  group.
(3) Because successful eradication of H. pylori also improves the natural history of peptic ulcers,
please provide details on the Helicobacter pylori status (including whether eradication therapy
was administered) of the two patients enrolled in the study.
(4) Please provide the daily dosage of aspirin for two enrolled patients in the study.
(5) Due to the predominantly animal experimental result of this study and the limited human
trial involving only two patients, it is recommended to incorporate the phrase 'animal model'
into the study title.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03265-0 (2024)

Title: Omeprazole taken once every other day can effectively prevent aspirin-induced
gastrointestinal mucosal damage in rats
Version: 3 Date: 19 Feb 2024
Reviewer:  Mohamed Hashim
Reviewer's report:
This study addresses an important issue in clinical practice.
Some points need to be addressed
Small sample size.
(In addition, in clinical work, patients with aspirin-related peptic ulcers took the standard dose
of omeprazole every other day, and ulcer healing was checked by gastroscopy after 2 months).
No of patients was 2 from which you can not get a conclusion.
Here the aim is different as the authors used PPI for treatment rather than prevention.
The study needs to be applied in human being in order to verify results.
The type of PPI used not to be addressed, whether it affects the results. This should be
emphasized in the discussion.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03265-0 (2024)

Title: Omeprazole taken once every other day can effectively prevent aspirin-induced
gastrointestinal mucosal damage in rats
Version: 4 Date: 15 Mar 2024
Reviewer:  Mohamed Hashim
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your response. I think the authors responded to most of the comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03262-3 (2024)

Title: Clinical and Endoscopic Characteristics of Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal
Endoscopic Procedures in Egypt: A Nationwide Multicenter Study
Version: 2 Date: 03 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript. After an in-depth review, I believe that your work
has not the potential to be published and should be revised.
• The word “Gastrointestinal” should be added to the title.
• Abstract should be revised in all parts to be more specific; esp. the conclusion and background.
• Method: Please write about the exact inclusion and exclusion criteria. Reference ranges of the
laboratory tests should be added.
• First paragraph of the Results should be revised in case of being clearer.
• Table 2 should be divided to Lower and Upper Egypt areas; the same figure as colonoscopy
findings would be good.
• Based on Table 1, why you did not consider the Family history and Past medical history for
patients underwent EGD.
• Tables should be revised; e.g., you repeated Hematochezia in Table 3 twice. Also, the caption
of the them also should be rewritten in term of clarity.
• The numbers (percentages and frequencies) should be consistent in tables and text. There are
some conflicts.
• As H.pylori testing is common in GI endoscopic examination, bring the data if it is done and
if not, please add it to limitation.
• Add a paragraph about the limitations of your work.
• The manuscript should be revised by a native English speaker. Instead of using complex words,
pay more attention to the clarity of the text.
• References should be updated and be more relevant.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03262-3 (2024)

Title: Clinical and Endoscopic Characteristics of Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal
Endoscopic Procedures in Egypt: A Nationwide Multicenter Study
Version: 2 Date: 14 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
Elbadry et al investigated the clinical  Clinical and Endoscopic Characteristics of Patients
Undergoing Endoscopic Procedures in Egypt: A Nationwide Multicenter Study.
The study is multicenter from different units in Egypt, included 5910 patients.
in the study differences between Upper and Lower Egypt were found in terms of indications and
findings in EGD and colonoscopy.
There are several points that could improve the manuscript:
1. Thu authors should write and explain  if the included procedures were performed electively
or in the emergent setting,  so 19% of the patients had hematoemsis, 17% had melena and 38%
hematochezia,  these proportion is very high for units with elective procedures, or were there
any bias, how were the patients selected?
2. limitations section should be added in the discussion: retrospective design, small number of
patients ....
3. Table 1: Wt. Loss - better to write withou abbreviation - Weight loss
4.  Heart Burn - Heartburn
5. Table 4- please correct, Albumen to Albumin
6. please add data regarding quality of Bowel preparation if available.
7. Figure 1- please add upper Egypt and lower Egypt.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03272-1 (2024)

Title: Exploring the foundations of a digital health information service for patients with
inflammatory bowel disease: A mixed method study in Gravitate-Health
Version: 1 Date: 30 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for this interesting paper to review. Digital health for patients with inflammatory bowel
disease is an important area to explore and evaluate. Checklist for reporting standards will help
to enhance the transparency of qualitative research as in your interviews. This was not provided.
However, I suggest some  recommendations and revision before it is ready for acceptance.
Title Exploring the foundations of a digital health information service for inflammatory bowel
disease: A study in Gravitate-Health
Short title: Needs & preferences in an IBD eHealth information service
The title and running title need to be clearer and more equal.
For patients with inflammatory bowel disease?
A study in Gravitate-Health is not indicating the approach
Design ? consider revision
Abstract Please consider separate background and aim in the abstract
Abbreviations in abstract depending on the journal?
Introduction- Self-management, there are various definitions, and synonyms to the concept, and
interview studies in this area, as well as questionnaire development, please check the research
in the field…and consider more research in the field.
For example
https://doi-org.proxy.lnu.se/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.08.016
The rational are fine
Aim- The aim is only mentioned in the abstract and not specific to research question or the title,
please revise
How can digital health information be prioritised and focussed to support everyday self-
management activities among patients with IBD?
Method- Define research paradigm, earlier in the study, design?
Line 133 two outpatient clinics
Line 159  2.2.2 consider- interviews with patients and focus groups with HCP in separate
headings
Definition of HCP can not be seen in the text, refers to IBD nurse? And MD?
How are the interviews audiorecorded ? saved and stored?
Interview guides are not shown? Consider presenting the guides
Line 166-167 refer to datanalysis
Consider presenting an example of the datanalysis.
Ethical statement- Line 526-528 Obtained information is not traceable back to individual
patients, and the storage and processing of the data material have been done in accordance with
local privacy regulations.
What does this mean? Consider expressing this information
Result- Check all figures and tables related to text, (Table X) and then the table should be
provided.
In result you often refer to participants, hard to understand if it refer to patients or HCP, please
consider revision
Table 5, for example  (HCP 5, MD) what does this express ? MD is not HCP?
Discussion- Line 333 findings that complement those of previous studies., no references are
provided?
Limitations In limitations you express the approach and reflexivity. No other qualitative
measures and not any discussion on generalizability or transferability, please consider this…
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03272-1 (2024)

Title: Exploring the foundations of a digital health information service for patients with
inflammatory bowel disease: A mixed method study in Gravitate-Health
Version: 2 Date: 01 May 2024
Reviewer:  Ulrica Lovén Wickman
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thanks for your response of  the reviewer reports where you responded to each step and provided
more detailed information.
The manuscript is well written, and seems to me as ready for publication
No further comments
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03272-1 (2024)

Title: Exploring the foundations of a digital health information service for patients with
inflammatory bowel disease: A mixed method study in Gravitate-Health
Version: 2 Date: 01 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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 sufficient 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 - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Yes, the authors have made changes accordingly.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Some minor important corrections are needed for Table 1, according to Table 3, please confirm
whether the
i) Age ‘65 and older’ should be ‘> 65’
ii) Disease duration ‘5 years or longer’ should be ‘> 5 years’
For the range of disease duration, I don’t think 0 is appropriate, disease duration by definition
wouldn't be zero for newly diagnosed patients. Please clarify, and also confirm that 56 years
is the maximum disease duration for one of the patients. Could you please state clearly in the
results eg. one patient has had the disease for a maximum of 56 years? The data shows the oldest
patient aged 94 year-old. This seems to suggest a positive trend – patients with IBD are living
well into their 90s?"
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03272-1 (2024)

Title: Exploring the foundations of a digital health information service for patients with
inflammatory bowel disease: A mixed method study in Gravitate-Health
Version: 3 Date: 17 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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 sufficient 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 - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors responded to reviewer comments and provided
acceptable reasons for removing the information, based on comment 2.
Again, for Table 1, there's a discrepancy: "# 65"  doesn't align with a group of "46-65 year-old"
in the other. Similarly, "#  5 years" shouldn't correspond to a group of "1-5 years. The authors
need to ensure their data in Table 1 matches Table 2 (> 65 year-oldand > 5 years).
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03270-3 (2024)

Title: Noninvasive models for the prediction of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B
Version: 0 Date: 20 Nov 2023
Reviewer:  Jean-Pierre Zarski
Reviewer's report:
This study, involving a large number of patients, investigated the value of several simple
biological tests for the assessment of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B. These tests have no patent.
They were compared with liver biopsy.
1) What is the delay between biopsy and blood testing?
2) Has the biopsy been independently reviewed by one or more ana pathologists?
3) Is a study of cirrhotic patients alone with AUROCs (F4) missing?
4) Have you performed or compared elastometry (fibroscan)? or other frequently used blood
tests? Fibotest, Fibrometer, Hepascore?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03270-3 (2024)

Title: Noninvasive models for the prediction of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B
Version: 1 Date: 05 Apr 2024
Reviewer:  Jean-Pierre Zarski
Reviewer's report:
This second version of the manuscript has been greatly improved and takes account of the
comments made by the 2 reviewers by providing additions and clarifications.
However, it seems to me that in the discussion it should be said that the results of the AUROCs
are somewhat disappointing and in any case inferior to those of the Fibroscan, which is the
reference test proposed by the learned societies, and also, in relation to the literature, to those of
the fibrotest or the fibrometer, for example. Finally, it should be emphasised that there are no
clear results in cirrhotic patients, where the results of AUROCs are usually the best.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03241-8 (2024)

Title: Outcome of patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma and previous biliary
instrumentation: An observational study
Version: 2 Date: 20 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Joris Erdmann
Reviewer's report:
Dr Brown and colleagues present relevant case series showing the results of  potentially
resectable patients with perihilar obstruction.  They show that patients who undergo drainage
procedures (mainly ERCP) in the referring center have less favourable outcomes than those who
undergo their first drainage in MSKCC. This is in line with previous literature and supports
the referral of these patients to expert centers directly without delay and especially untouched
bile ducts. Besides this very relevant observation and reason enough to publish this paper by
itself the authors add that PTCD is therefore superior to ERCP. The argumentation goes back
and forth and there is actually minimal evaluation of other literature. There is some unballanced
discussion about the results of the DRAINAGE trial. I think the DRAINAGE trial deserves
critical appraisal (as put forward in part in the long term follow up paper), but some comments
directed at the   investigators and clinicians involved in this study are unacceptable to my taste.
Please consult the surgeons involved how to put the strong words in a friendly form.  With
regard to surgical mortality: Referral to the SIR criteria is wrong. These are surgical patients
undergoing the most dangerous operation in general oncological surgery. Please refer to large
database data such as the ENCCA. I put a reference in the text.
Most importantly they did not study the choice of ERCP or PTCD, this series merely summarizes
the flow and outcomes of their daily practice. Any actual comparison is futile, most of the
patients were already drained, the dramatic early deaths due to post-ercp and post PTCD
pancreatitis or cholangitis disease progression etc etc are all filtered out. Two thirds of the
patients referred in this series were drained and thus already stood the test of time. In stark
contrast to the DRAINAGE trial from a highly centralised system (refer and not drain is the
motto) that included a very unselected group of patients.
I think this paper has serious merit when it is written toward changing daily practice in the
MSKCC referral area. Refer and not drain!  Add a balanced review of literature in support of
both techniques, elaborate a bit about innovations.
I added some recent publications to consider. Not to refer to but just to shape the thoughts.
Most of the above is in the text, and some additional remarks.
If the authors would consider to re-write the discussion toward a more balanced discussion aimed
at improving care in their region I would gladly revise and probably support publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03241-8 (2024)

Title: Outcome of patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma and previous biliary
instrumentation: An observational study
Version: 7 Date: 09 Apr 2024
Reviewer:  Jian Zhao
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the author's detailed answer. The horizontal axis title of Figure 2b has an
additional "1"
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03258-z (2024)

Title: Preliminary Study on the Diagnostic Value of LEAP-2 and CK18 in Biopsy-Proven
MAFLD
Version: 2 Date: 09 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
This study assesses CK18 M30/M65 and LEAP-2 as potential biomarkers for diagnosing
Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Fatty Liver Disease (MAFLD). Positive correlations with
ALT and AST are observed, with CK18 M65 recommended for screening and LEAP-2 for
differential diagnosis.
Some suggestions :
1. Clarify the clinical relevance of chosen biomarkers.
2, Address study limitations and propose future research directions.
3. Provide concise demographic characteristics of the study population.
4. Discuss potential implications for clinical practice.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03258-z (2024)

Title: Preliminary Study on the Diagnostic Value of LEAP-2 and CK18 in Biopsy-Proven
MAFLD
Version: 2 Date: 22 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript explores the role of different expression levels of CK18 M30/M65 and LEAP-2
in diagnosing MAFLD. Overall, the study is relevant and it has been designed properly, although
there are some major issues that must be regarded:
Introduction:
*Page 2 (lines 28-29) - I suggest including a brief description about NAFLD now being called
metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and its differences from
MAFLD.
*Page 3 (line 43) - I suggest replacing "which is not sensitive enough" for "despite of not being
sensitive enough" to eliminate ambiguity in this sentence.
Methods:
*Page 5 (line 93) - Monocyte (MONO) abbreviation, as well as basophils (BASO) and
eosinophils (EO) descriptions are missing from the methods section. They are reported
afterwards on page 7, line 123 and on the table. Uric acid shows different abbreviation on
the methods section and on the results section. Other abbreviations lack description or are
misspelled.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03267-y (2024)

Title: The Prevalence and Severity of Upper Gastrointestinal Complications among Patients
with Chronic Diseases: A Cross-Sectional Study from Palestine
Version: 2 Date: 04 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
Title: “The Prevalence and Severity of Upper Gastrointestinal Complications among Patients
with Chronic Diseases: A Cross-Sectional Study from Palestine”.
The study is fascinating and its findings could help improve healthcare contribution in health
services and patient care.  I have some comments which I hope the authors would consider to
improve the quality of the manuscript.
Recommendation: Revision
Abstract
Some interesting results in the paper can be added to the abstract section
Add p-value to the results
Introduction
Kindly add the rationale of the study and elaborate on what it adds to the existing literature at
the end of the introduction
Methods
Did the study receive ethical approval? Please provide details at the end of “Study design and
subjects”
Please cite the study from which the questionnaire was adopted.
Did the authors evaluate the validity and reliability of the developed study instrument? Please
provide details.
What was the average time to complete the survey?
Were the data of the pilot study included in the main study results?
Results
How many individuals were approached and how many agreed to participate?
Add all abbreviations under each table
Again add p-value when it is appropriate
Discussion
Kindly include comparisons with earlier research findings from the dame geographical are such
as Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
The discussion needs to be more concise and more robust
Please delete unnecessary figures from the discussion. Any percentages should be in the result
section
Conclusion
The conclusion needs to be more concise and include clear implications of study findings on
pharmacology and clinical  context
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03267-y (2024)

Title: The Prevalence and Severity of Upper Gastrointestinal Complications among Patients
with Chronic Diseases: A Cross-Sectional Study from Palestine
Version: 2 Date: 15 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Hani Naseef
Reviewer's report:
Introduction:
• The author mentioned: “Recent studies showed that the prevalence of dyspepsia associated
with aspirin”
Comment: Why is aspirin related to dyspepsia since this medicine is now available as enteric-
coated tablets? Need clarification
• The study aims to assess the prevalence : aimed to
• To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first of its type in Palestine:
Comment: A new paper was published; hopefully the author will take it into consideration.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10646118/
Material and methods:
• This study was conducted in Jenin city in the West Bank and included patients visiting
outpatient clinics in Ibn Sina hospital.
Comment: Why did the authors select this hospital and city? Does this sample really represent
all Palestinians? It's possible that the authors should retitle their manuscript. Additinaly need
clarifications for the city selection
• The clinics are for patients with internal diseases, and most of them are suffering from chronic
diseases
Comment: What percentage of patients have from chronic diseases ? need references also
• Comment: must address the  total population
• The inclusion criteria were as follows: males and females, confirmed diagnosis of chronic
diseases and using one or more chronic medications
•
Comment: Did the authors obtain these details from the patient's record?  And the age below
eighteen? If any, were they included in the study?
• Comment: Was the Dyspepsia Questionnaire delivered in Arabic or English? If in Arabic: Who
did the translation?
•
• Comment: Who participates in the data collection process?  Did they receive any training?
Results:
• Table 2: Table 2: The total number of patients with dyspepsia is 137 + 98 + 104 + 51 + 10
= 263 instead of 264. the same comment for the Heartburn. . Please check all of the numbers
in the tables.,
• Comment: Why did the authors not make associations between dyspepsia and diseases or
drugs?  Given that some illnesses and/or medications may have an impact on dyspepsia, I believe
it is crucial to make these associations.
Discussion:
More than 90% of participants reported having dyspepsia to some extent, according to the
authors. I believe that the discussion should have focused on the causes of these outcomes and
tried to explain these results in light of the findings of this study.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03243-6 (2024)

Title: A comprehensive scoring system for the better prediction of bowel resection in pediatric
intussusception
Version: 1 Date: 07 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
The novelty of the manuscript is marginal. The same topic has been discussed in literature (Wu
TH, et al. Clinical characteristics of pediatric intussusception and predictors of bowel resection
in affected patients. Front Surg. 2022).
Presence of gross bloody stool was conducted to be a risk factor. It is unreasonable. Most cases
present gross bloody stool!
Intussusception should be managed as emergency. However, it will cost over half hour to get
the result of C-reactive proteins and LCR. I don’t think it is valuable for clinical application.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03243-6 (2024)

Title: A comprehensive scoring system for the better prediction of bowel resection in pediatric
intussusception
Version: 2 Date: 11 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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 sufficient 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 - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Yes authors have addressed all the concerns and incorporated in the
text
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
None
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03243-6 (2024)

Title: A comprehensive scoring system for the better prediction of bowel resection in pediatric
intussusception
Version: 2 Date: 20 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for author’s reply.
However, what is the clinical value of those findings in the study? For making decision for early
surgery? Or for counselling parents before surgery?
It is regrettable that there were 660 hospitalized patients with intussusception suffered surgery
from April 2008 to December 2020. I think the critical issue is to figure out some solutions for
reducing surgical intervention in children with intussusception in your hospital.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03269-w (2024)

Title: Widespread use of proton pump inhibitors or potassium-competitive acid blocker has
changed the status of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with ischemic heart disease: Real-
world data from high volume centers
Version: 2 Date: 28 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
A good study but with a relatively short follow up and being retrospective bears the limitations
of missing out important data.
The following points needs clarification from the authors
[1] Please define severity grading of anemia, chronic kidney disease, cerebrovascular disease
[mild moderate severe etc]. Was it done by level of hemoglodin, GFR and type of CVA?
[2] It appears that patients of GI bleed included in study were severe ones [“that required
endoscopic hemostasis, hospitalization or blood transfusion, or fatal gastrointestinal bleeding”]
Were mild GI bleed that stopped by itself excluded? That would underestimate the risk or
incidence of GI bleed. This may be the reason why incidence of GI bleed is so small.
[3] Table 1. All odds ration are not mentioned. Please calculate them for all parameters. Compare
the haemoglobin and Prothrombin times of both groups in table. [It is likely that P.times must
have been done in most patients as they were on anticoagulants/antiplatelet agents.]. Hemoglobin
may be a surrogate for bleeding. Also mention the comorbidities and use of other medications
like steroids/NSAIDs and compare them in the two groups.
[4] Table 2. It should be mentioned whether any combination of PPI and PCAB were being
used. Similarly how many were using combinations of DAPT, DOAC, warfarin etc. All odds
ratio should be mentioned.
[5] It is only mentioned about endoscopic hemostasis in the paper. Did all bleeding patients
undergo endoscopy?  How was small intestinal pathology diagnosed?
[6] In the discussion section it is mentioned “Although we found some statistically significant
factors associated with gastrointestinal bleeding, they might be the result of type II errors due to
the very small number of gastrointestinal bleeding cases. Therefore, multicenter or prospective
studies are necessary to obtain more accurate data.” In this context the long term prospective
study “Incidence and outcome of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients receiving aspirin with or
without clopidogrel over 10 years - An observational study. December 2022, Journal of Family
Medicine and Primary care.” can be quoted which is a study with follow up of 10 years and
derives many of the factors associated with GI bleed on long term. The study is also relevant
for the sites of bleed as in the present study.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03269-w (2024)

Title: Widespread use of proton pump inhibitors or potassium-competitive acid blocker has
changed the status of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with ischemic heart disease: Real-
world data from high volume centers
Version: 2 Date: 28 Jan 2024
Reviewer:  Yi-Hua Wu
Reviewer's report:
1. This review offers promising prospects, however the authors should provide further details
about the safety of PPI or PCAB in patients undergoing Plavix treatment after PCI for ischemic
heart disease. Due to the possible reduction in effectiveness of Plavix, PPIs may increase the
risk of heart attack or stroke. Additionally, the inclusion of pharmacological side effects, such
as allergic reactions, should be taken into account when determining the exclusion criteria or
secondary outcome measures.
Furthermore, the authors could consider updating the mentioned examples in the paper to include
data from 2022 or 2023, instead of stopping at 2019.
3. It is necessary to establish the categorization of gastric ulcers in patients before to PCI.
4. It is necessary to explain the approach used to address unavailable information.
The authors fail to elucidate their approach in addressing this dearth of information, including
both the main and secondary outcomes.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03269-w (2024)

Title: Widespread use of proton pump inhibitors or potassium-competitive acid blocker has
changed the status of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with ischemic heart disease: Real-
world data from high volume centers
Version: 8 Date: 10 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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 sufficient 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 - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors provided all responses on my previous questions.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03260-5 (2024)

Title: Evaluating the Diagnostic Accuracy of Heat Shock Proteins and their Combination with
Alpha-Fetoprotein in the Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 04 Nov 2023
Reviewer:  Mohammad Zare
Reviewer's report:
Regardless of any opinion about the details of this manuscript, I have decided to reject it due to its
flawed methodological approach. The authors employed univariate methods to calculate pooled
summary points using MetaDisc 1.4—an approach that is deemed unacceptable for diagnostic
test accuracy (DTA) studies for more than 10 years. Instead, they should have used the bivariate/
HSROC model, which is in line with the guidelines set by Cochrane. Furthermore, although
the authors mentioned using STATA as an acceptable software for DTA studies (the metandi
or midas packages), I could not find any figures in the manuscript that were generated using
this software.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03260-5 (2024)

Title: Evaluating the Diagnostic Accuracy of Heat Shock Proteins and their Combination with
Alpha-Fetoprotein in the Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 27 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. Before the evaluation of diagnostic efficiency of HSPs, this study must identify what are the
index text and reference test?
2. The QUADAS-2 contains four domains as follows: patient selection, index test, reference
standard and flow and trimming. What the “trimming” means?
3. Regarding the diagnostic accuracy of the single or combined use of target
biomarkers, a table will the better format to summarize their findings.
4. Although the Spearman correlation coefficient and P-value were -0.238 (P = 0.570), -0.238
(P = 0.570) and -0.800 (P = 0.200) for HSPs, AFP and combination of both, respectively, which
are not statistically significant, the authors still interpreted these findings with caution.
5. What is the GALAD score?
6. Our results confirmed that the combination of HSPs and AFP has better diagnostic
performance than other biomarkers alone or combination. Because HSPs are a family of various
proteins, which one is the best significant HSP identified in this study?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03260-5 (2024)

Title: Evaluating the Diagnostic Accuracy of Heat Shock Proteins and their Combination with
Alpha-Fetoprotein in the Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis
Version: 3 Date: 05 May 2024
Reviewer:  Zaki A. Sherif
Reviewer's report:
I am satisfied with the complete answers, responses, and modifications that the authors have
made and implemented.