JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02389-5 (2022)

Title: CT enterography for evaluation of disease activity in patients with ileocolonic Crohn's
disease
Version: 1 Date: 26 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-designed and interesting study. However, I've detected a few issues:
You are writing that "CT enterography imaging was performed as described in our previous
report(8). "Could you please indicate in short CT enterography technique?
What are the strengths of your study?
The manuscript needs native English editing.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02389-5 (2022)

Title: CT enterography for evaluation of disease activity in patients with ileocolonic Crohn's
disease
Version: 3 Date: 21 Apr 2022
Reviewer:  Ilhami Yuksel
Reviewer's report:
Congratulations to the authors for editing all but one of the proposals.
The Authors evaluated severity and extent of inflammatory lesions using CDEIS and active
disease was defined as CDEIS #3, which was addressed in the endoscopic data collection section.
In the predictors of disease activity and severity in CTE section; The Authors addressed that
to determine CT findings, endoscopic lesion (of any type) or ulcers at endoscopy or CDEIS #3
was used. If the active disease was defined as CDEIS #3, it should be used in the Table 3, or if
the Authors will use non-ulcerative lesions or ulceration as endoscopic activity parameters, they
should defined that clearly in the endoscopic data collection section instead of CDEIS #3.
This study is acceptable for publication after arrangement of recommendation.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02389-5 (2022)

Title: CT enterography for evaluation of disease activity in patients with ileocolonic Crohn's
disease
Version: 3 Date: 23 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Notes:
The authors have addressed most of the issues in introduction, methodology and discussion
sections.
1. The authors need to put in their use of HBI instead of CDAI as a drawback of their study. As
to calling CDAI as "complex, time-consuming, and impractical", it can be put in the drawback
section with appropriate reference.
2. I do acknowledge the reference quoted for lack of use of any anti-motility agent. However,
I urge you to read the drawbacks of the study. You may justify their omission as an institute
policy; but a justification needs to be included in the methodology section.
3. I would still insist on a flow chart of patient selection and in brief the criteria followed for
reviewing image quality.
4. "Why were the patients with incomplete ileo-colonoscopy not excluded? How did the authors
correlate CT findings in non visualised segments (endoscopy) in these patients? - CDEIS score is
not accurate if we included patients with incomplete ileo-colonoscopy indeed. In order to reduce
the bias of statistical analysis, the statistical analysis is based on both per lesion and per patient."
This till doesn't answer my question.
5. "There is no association between the mural thickness and mural stratification. these
two parameters were independent of each other" - what method did you use to check this.
6. Kindly include absence of collection of data about radiation exposure as a drawback.
7. Finally, presentation of results section is still not proper. It needs elaboration. While it may
be easy for the authors to omit some results; it makes it difficult for the readers to understand
the process. If it were a purely clinical paper, it would have been understandable. However, if
you put the "Development of CT enterography index" in the title - results and statistics need
much more detail.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02389-5 (2022)

Title: CT enterography for evaluation of disease activity in patients with ileocolonic Crohn's
disease
Version: 3 Date: 30 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
While reporting mean and SD, instead of writing “mean ± SD” the better way of representation
would be “mean (SD)” as it will decrease the chance of confusion with confidence interval.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02389-5 (2022)

Title: CT enterography for evaluation of disease activity in patients with ileocolonic Crohn's
disease
Version: 4 Date: 09 May 2022
Reviewer:  Ilhami Yuksel
Reviewer's report:
In the presented study, active disease was defined as CDEIS #3 and endoscopic lesion or ulcers
at endoscopy was removed from active disease definition, which is quite appropriate design.
That endoscopic definition of active disease (CDEIS#3) should be used in the Table 3, instead
of non-ulcerative lesions or ulceration as endoscopic activity parameters.
New statistical results and new version Table-3 information according to above-mentioned
definition of active disease (CDEIS#3) should recreated and rewritten in the text.
This study is unacceptable for publication as it is. However after arrangement of major
recommendation, this study is acceptable for publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02392-w (2022)

Title: COLONIC BACTERIAL DIVERSITY AND DYSBIOSIS IN ACTIVE
MICROSCOPIC COLITIS AS COMPARED TO CHRONIC DIARRHOEA AND HEALTHY
CONTROLS: EFFECT OF POLYETHYLENE GLYCOL AFTER BOWEL LAVAGE FOR
COLONOSCOPY
Version: 2 Date: 11 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
the athors described the microbiota of MC patients compared to healthy controls and other
chronic diarrhoea before bowel preparation for colonoscopy and found a not specific variation
of mibcrobiota between the diarrohoea.
The authors pointed to the limitations of the study which nevertheless led to challenging results.
The study is well described and very interesting, I have no major request.
Has a possible variation of the microbiota been evaluated after intestinal preparation other than
PEG?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02392-w (2022)

Title: COLONIC BACTERIAL DIVERSITY AND DYSBIOSIS IN ACTIVE
MICROSCOPIC COLITIS AS COMPARED TO CHRONIC DIARRHOEA AND HEALTHY
CONTROLS: EFFECT OF POLYETHYLENE GLYCOL AFTER BOWEL LAVAGE FOR
COLONOSCOPY
Version: 2 Date: 06 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
The main objective of the authors in this work was to assess the effect of polyethylene glycol
colonic lavage on clinical remission, microbial diversity , dysbiosis and diversity in patient with
microscopic colitis (MC). The area of the work is interesting and of clinical  importance. The
manuscript is well written, includes important controls (non-MC) and statistical parameters. The
methodology used is relevant and is of state-of-the art. The authors have included 55 patients
of MC, along with relevant controls of other diarrheal diseases and healthy volunteer subjects.
However, the findings (the differences between MC and non-MC) are very subtle, and that
comes as a general weakness of this work. While the study reveals a few subtle differences
between MC and non-MC patients, in most cases there isn’t much change. For instance, there
were no differences between MC and non-MC subjects in case of the Baseline Shannon Index
of microbial diversity. In case of dysbiosis, no bacterial species showed a significantly different
relative abundance among the diarrheal groups. No PEG-induced changes were found in faecal
microbiome. Nevertheless, considering the overall importance of the field the work may be
considered for publication only if the following weaknesses are addressed:
1. The clinical remission data 53% in MC versus 32% of non-MC is interesting but the
confidence level is not remarkable, increasing the sample size may be helpful.
2. There is lack of clarity of the rationale behind choosing the sample size in this study. Clear
description of the sample size calculation and statistical justification would  be helpful.
3. Addition of PCA of Shannon index would have strengthened the importance of diversity  in
various diseases included in context dependent manner.
4. It is unclear if in all cases post colonoscopy the patients were free of drugs/therapeutics and
similar diet. This should be clearly defined and in case the enrolment excluded those undergoing
any therapy post endoscopy, the same should be part of the exclusion criterion
5. All the figure legend description requires more details along with a suitable caption.
6. The human ethical clearance protocol number, the biosafety clearance protocol number should
be provided
7. All taxonomic names (genus and species) provided in tables (1-3) should be italicized
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02393-9 (2022)

Title: Abdominal obesity phenotypes are associated with the risk of developing non-alcoholic
fatty liver disease: insights from the general population
Version: 0 Date: 18 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
The study demonstrated that people with the MHAO phenotype and MUAO phenotype have a
higher risk of NAFLD than those with the MNHAO phenotype, especially in females, which
emphasizes the importance of abdominal obesity as a risk factor for NAFLD and the importance
of strengthening the screening of NAFLD and related metabolic diseases in abdominal obese
people.
1. Among the included subjects, the total number of females is 6840, of which MHNAO is 4567,
so the proportion should be 66.77%, not 43.20%, the author should carefully check and correct it.
2. Among the male subjects included, the authors only listed the proportions of the three types of
MHAO, MUNAO and MUAO, it is recommended to add the proportion of MHNAO, which will
be more clear. In addition, the NAFLD prevalence rates of the four phenotypes in male subjects
are written in the paper, but this does not allow readers to clearly understand which phenotype
these numbers refer to specifically, and the authors are advised to express more clearly.
3. According to the result of this paper, “compared with the MHNAO phenotype, the association
of abdominal obesity phenotypes with NAFLD risk was relatively attenuated in male subjects”, it
is suggested that the author explain the causes of this phenomenon more deeply in the discussion
section, although the author has explained it slightly.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02393-9 (2022)

Title: Abdominal obesity phenotypes are associated with the risk of developing non-alcoholic
fatty liver disease: insights from the general population
Version: 0 Date: 27 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
thank you very much for submitting the paper.
The cohort of patients is quite large and well presented. The acronyms MUAo, MHAO etc are
a bit difficult to follow - it might be nice to change them with easier terminology to make it
easier for the reader.
However, the clinical utility of this classification is not clear compared to current diagnosis of
NAFLD. The authors should highlight the benefit of using this classification
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02387-7 (2022)

Title: Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization alone versus combined with microwave
ablation for recurrent small hepatocellular carcinoma after resection: A retrospective
comparative study
Version: 3 Date: 01 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
To the authors:
“Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization alone versus combined with microwave ablation for
recurrent small hepatocellular carcinoma after resection: A retrospective comparative study”
My comments are as follows.
1. Please show the rationale whether hepatitis B be present or not.
2. Please show the rationale for setting the cut-off value of AFP to 400 ng/mL.
3. As a result, which treatment, MWA or RFA, do you think it is suitable after TACE?
4. You mentioned “TACE and TACE-MWA may lead to a similar OS in patients with recurrent
small HCC after resection. However, TACE-MWA shows a better tumor response at 1 month
and may prolong tumor PFS time”. How about as the first line treatment in patients with recurrent
small HCC, not after resection? Please explain your opinion.
I hope that my comments will be useful in improving the article.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02387-7 (2022)

Title: Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization alone versus combined with microwave
ablation for recurrent small hepatocellular carcinoma after resection: A retrospective
comparative study
Version: 3 Date: 30 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I revised the paper entitled “Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization alone versus combined
with microwave ablation for recurrent small hepatocellular carcinoma after resection: A
retrospective comparative study”. It aims to compare both TACE alone and TACE-MWA in
management of small recurrent HCC post resection.
I have some comments:
1. Considering TACE is a palliative tool in management of HCC while the study involved small
HCC lesions less than 3 cm and less than 3 in number, I thought that the main proposed line
of management would be MWA and to compare it with MWA-TACE, rather than comparing
a palliative TACE line vs MWA-TACE. As expected, TACE alone had lower ablative rates
than MWA-TACE and I find that the main reason for successful results of MWA-TACE is the
presence of MWA than the effect of TACE.
2. Assessment of radiological response was 1 month post ablation. It was better to provide later
radiological response rates at 3 and 6 months post ablation.
3. The sample size is actually small.
4. Number of re-TACE sessions reached up to 7 and 9 sessions in both groups. This is truly
surprising if we consider the management of small recurrent HCC. Is there an explanation for
the very large number of sessions of TACE. This is more surprising in the MWA-TACE group.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02387-7 (2022)

Title: Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization alone versus combined with microwave
ablation for recurrent small hepatocellular carcinoma after resection: A retrospective
comparative study
Version: 6 Date: 05 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Many thanks for your reply. I have no more comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02395-7 (2022)

Title: Diagnostic accuracy of DNA-based SDC2 methylation test in colorectal cancer screening:
a meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 24 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
1. Multitarget stool DNA (MT-sDNA) every three years was approved by the US Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) in 2014. (Jaklevic MC. JAMA 2021;325:116-118.) The DNA
test includes quantitative molecular assays for KRAS mutations, aberrant NDRG4 and BMP3
methylation, and #-actin.
The sensitivity of MT-sDNA for CRC was 92.3%, and for stage I-III CRC was 93.3%. The
AUC for CRC was 0.94 (N Engl J Med 2014;370:1287-97). The authors should compare SDC2
methylation and MT-sDNA.
2. In the “Abstract” section, the authors should Initially use the word “SDC2” in full, not use
the abbreviation
3. In the “Abstract” section, the authors should describe clearly the sensitivity, specificity,
positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio were for adenoma, early CRC, or CRC.
4. In the “Data extraction” section, what did tp, fp, fn, and tn mean?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02395-7 (2022)

Title: Diagnostic accuracy of DNA-based SDC2 methylation test in colorectal cancer screening:
a meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 15 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
In this meta-analysis, the authors aimed to estimate the diagnostic performance of methylated
sindecan2 as a potential biomarker to screen for colorectal cancer.  They found that SDC2 could
be a useful biomarker for CRC, and for precancerous adenomas.
The revised version of the manuscript is correct, the authors answer the questions of the previous
reviewers. The changes they made improved the quality of the review.  They discuss their results
in a moderate way, also the results are critically evaluated. I suggest accepting the manuscript
for publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02371-1 (2022)

Title: Prognostic Value of Plasma Level of Superoxide Dismutase in HBV-related Acute-on-
chronic Liver Failure
Version: 2 Date: 11 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
1. The authors have focused their analysis on 47 patients with HBV ACLF caused by
discontinuation of Entecavir. Please mention why Entecavir was discontinued in these 47
patients. What treatment was given to these patients ? Where they started on any anti-hepatitis
B medicines ?
2. Abstract. Increased plasma levels of HBV-DNA (4.79±0.14 vs 6.49±0.24, P<0.01)
Log10(HBV-DNA) and SOD (463.1±27.61 vs 397.2±10.97, P<0.05) were found in patients due
to ETV withdrawal. This line appears to be incorrect, as the HBV DNA level (4.79) mentioned
were lower in these patients.
3. Results: Sub Title 3.2: Withdrawal of ETV improved mortality rate in HBV ACLF patients.
This sub title / statement is incorrect, as mentioned in the first line in this section. (The mortality
rate of patients with HBV-ACLF was 46.71% in ETV group at 90 days, and 65.95% in ETV
withdrawal group.)
4. Plasm to be changed to Plasma, throughout the manuscript
5. Abbrevations : Lamivudine: LVD; Telbivudine: LDT are mentioned, however, these do not
appear in the manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02371-1 (2022)

Title: Prognostic Value of Plasma Level of Superoxide Dismutase in HBV-related Acute-on-
chronic Liver Failure
Version: 5 Date: 30 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Major comments:
• Multivariate analysis: Creatinine, as well as INR and Bilirubin are components of MELD
score. Inclusion of highly related variables leads to collinearity problems making analysis
unreliable. Authors should choose between including MELD score or its components separately
in multivariate analysis, not both.
• Line 270-271: Authors should justify or otherwise modify their statement that “We found that
oxidative stress not only participates in the initiation step but also in the whole pathogenesis
process”. This study is about the prognostic value of SOD levels. Study methods and analysis
does not support such conclusion.
• Line 272: Please rephrase “The exclusion of HBV might be one of the reasons why the MELD
score is less suitable for HBV-ACLF patients”
• Table 5. It would be of great interest if authors could compare also inflammatory markers other
than white blood cells, as CRP or neutrophil count / percentage between the two groups.
• Line 181: Authors should also compare SOD levels between ETV withdrawal and non ETV
groups.
Minor comments:
Line 53: Authors could write “with chronic liver disease” instead of “due to chronic”
Line 74: Please rephrase: categorized as intrahepatic or extrahepatic events, during pathogenesis.
Line 90: Please expand ROS
Line 114: Please use “for” instead of “of ACLF”
Line 115: Please use “for” instead of “based on CHB”
Line 138: Please use “measured: instead of “detected”
Line 159: Please rephrase “Clinical events were defined by the presence of complications”.
Lines 175-181: Please provide unit of measurement for SOD
Line 179: Authors could write “compared to the ETV group” instead of “compared to in the
ETV group”
Lines 220-221: Please rephrase “high short-time mortality in patients due to chronic liver
diseases”.
Line 226: Please rephrase : «due to their effective ability”
Lines 229-234: Please rephrase as “Oxidative stress has been shown to participate in the
pathogenesis of advanced liver failure” seems to duplicate “Also, oxidative stress has been
shown to be important in activating the initial steps of various disorders, including hepatic
failure”
Lines 254-256: Please add references
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02382-y (2022)

Title: The gut microbiota composition in patients with right- and left-sided colorectal cancer
and after curative colectomy, as analyzed by 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing
Version: 3 Date: 15 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript is well conducted, however I think that some aspects need to be clarified and
the quality needs to be improved in order to be considered for publication.
- The authors should clarify why they used two methodologies to determine the composition of
the microbiota. If T-RFLP was used as a filter to reduce the number of samples to be analysed
by NGS, what were the sample selection criteria?
In addition, the title of the manuscript states that the analysis of the microbiota is based on NGS.
- Keep the term microbiota throughout the article, in some sections you may see the term "flora".
- Please check carefully for grammatical errors and typos during proofreading.
-Page 10, “The LDA score is useful in discriminating between each group”, this sentence needs
to be supported with more information, on what basis is this assertion made?
-Page 11, subtitle: “Metagenomic analysis” needs to be revised, this section describes the
prediction of metabolic potential. The same applies to the titles of tables 3 and 4.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02382-y (2022)

Title: The gut microbiota composition in patients with right- and left-sided colorectal cancer
and after curative colectomy, as analyzed by 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing
Version: 3 Date: 14 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript by Suga et al explored microbial composition in 31 patients with colon cancer
with and without curative colectomy compared with 10 healthy controls. This is an interesting
topic in part because the regional microenvironment of the colon especially in relation to cancer
is not well understood. The author is found changes an alpha diversity specific to the region of
cancer and resection. Changes in genus level abundance and clostridial clusters were associated
with patient groups. A variety of computational techniques were included, including Standard
diversity assessment and enrichment tools, as well as predictive meta-genomics.
The significance in age between some of the patient groups mentioned in the results and
displayed in the table should be included in the discussion as a limitation. Another important
limitation is the lack of dietary intake across patients that could potentially skew results given
the relatively modest sample sizes.
The methods and/or results lack details on how many reads were obtained across samples or
on average within samples. Also what rarefaction depth was used in analysis, including alpha
diversity etc. They should be reported.
In LEfSe the LDA used as significant should be reported, I assume 2.0, but please state in the
methods.
The legend for figure 1 should include the statistical symbols currently shown in the figure. The
same figure legend states that Shannon and Simpson diversity indexes were used in the study
but are not displayed.
In the legend for figure 2 A and B, please address whether PERMANOVA or a comparable beta
diversity statistics were included to determine significance in beta diversity between groups.
This should be mentioned with the Legend.
The manuscript requires light grammatical editing
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02382-y (2022)

Title: The gut microbiota composition in patients with right- and left-sided colorectal cancer
and after curative colectomy, as analyzed by 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing
Version: 5 Date: 13 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors were fairly responsive to the critique of both reviewers and I am satisfied with the
revised manuscript and figures.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02382-y (2022)

Title: The gut microbiota composition in patients with right- and left-sided colorectal cancer
and after curative colectomy, as analyzed by 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing
Version: 5 Date: 23 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Responses have addressed the reviewers' comments. The manuscript can now be accepted.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02388-6 (2022)

Title: Bowel Frequency (night) and Urgent Defecation are Improved by Budesonide Foam in
Patients with Ulcerative Colitis: a retrospective observational study
Version: 3 Date: 18 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Budesonide formulations have a low risk of side effects and are often used casually as remission
induction therapy, but in practice the timing of drug withdrawal and efficacy determination is
often confusing. This paper is very interesting in that it also discusses the timing of the efficacy
determination of budesonide.
To improve the manuscript, some modifications are needed.
Major
1. Are steroid-dependent or resistant patients included in the target cases? If so, is it as effective
as other patients?
2. Among the exclusions shown in Figure 1, only steroids and Bio during induction of remission
are listed. The use of remission induction therapies such as tacrolimus and G-CAP should also
be investigated.
3. Is the timing of administration of the budesonide form constant for all?
4. Why did you set the observation period for treatment with budesonide forms at 2 and 6 weeks?
5. Of the 102 patients included, what about patients with overlapping symptoms, such as 36
patients with nocturnal defecation symptoms and 45 patients with urgent defecation symptoms?
6. In lines 76-77, " SCCAI 0, # 2, and # 3 were defined as complete clinical remission,
clinical remission, and active UC, respectively" Please provide any references to support your
classification.
7. In lines 112-113, "Clinical efficacy of budesonide foam for UC patients with residual clinical
symptoms even in the remission score (SCCAI 1 or 2) )". In SCCAI, which is evaluated based
on clinical symptoms, it is not surprising that symptoms remain at SCCAI 1 or 2.
The statement "residual clinical symptoms even in the remission score (SCCAI 1 or 2)" seems
incongruous.
8. Although the SCCAI is used as a score, the scores for nocturnal defecation and tightness of
bowel movements are low (1-2 points), and an increase or decrease in the SCCAI score alone
may not lead to an evaluation of the improvement rate of tightness of bowel movements and
nocturnal defecation.
9. In line 121, "No adverse events were seen in any subject during this study." Please state what
adverse events were seen. For example, liver problems, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, etc. as
described in the attached document.
Minor
10. In lines 68-69, it is stated that noctual and urgent defection were evaluated as sub-items of the
SCCAI. In the paper that defined the SCCAI (Walmsley RS et al. Gut. 1998 Jul;43(1):29-32.),
noctual defecation (noctual in this paper) is referred to as "bowel frequency (night). It would be
better to change it to that notation.
11. It is desirable to summarize Figure 2-4 as Figure 2A-C and Figure 5-7 as Figure 3A-C.
12. The paper in Reference No. 24 is "J Gastroenterol" instead of "Gastroenterol".
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02388-6 (2022)

Title: Bowel Frequency (night) and Urgent Defecation are Improved by Budesonide Foam in
Patients with Ulcerative Colitis: a retrospective observational study
Version: 3 Date: 06 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to review this manuscript.
This retrospective study investigates the effectiveness of budesonide foam in ulcerative colitis
from the perspective of urgent and nocturnal defecation. Due to the difficulty in evaluating the
efficacy of budesonide foam, the study was not conducted as a clinical trial. Nevertheless, the
authors have investigated its clinical efficacy. This manuscript needs to be revised as follows:
Major revisions:
Material and Methods:
# Budesonide foam is often used in on demand cases. As stated in the Limitations section,
frequency of use and adherence are important conditions that might have affected the results
of this study and could be a concern for many readers. Therefore, it should be specified in the
Material and Methods section.
Results:
# This study includes patients with Mayo endoscopic subscore 3 who show severe ulcerative
colitis endoscopically. Was the effect of PSL and Biologics used in combination on these patients
not strong? Or did budesonide foam alone improve patients with MES 3?
# Only three UC patients were evaluated endoscopically, as shown in Figure 8. Is Figure 8
necessary?
# Figure 5 shows a significant difference between baseline and the complete clinical remission
rate in W2 and W6. This study excludes UC patients who are in complete clinical remission in
the first place. Is the complete clinical remission rate significance test in this study statistically
significant?
Minor revisions:
# Include a description for each abbreviation used in Table 1.
# The CRP unit "mg/ dl" in Table 1 should be listed as a variable.
# Please add the unit of age in Table 1.
# Is Mean + SD in Figures 2–8 meant to be Mean ± SD?
# Please correct "quality of life" on page 5, line 40 to "QOL".
# Please correct "sub-score" on page 6, line 62 to "subscore".
# Please correct "mayo" on Page 9, line 117 to "Mayo".
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02388-6 (2022)

Title: Bowel Frequency (night) and Urgent Defecation are Improved by Budesonide Foam in
Patients with Ulcerative Colitis: a retrospective observational study
Version: 6 Date: 02 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
I am grateful for the revison of  this manuscripts.
This paper seems to be worth publishing.
I hope this paper will be referenced by many clinicians.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02388-6 (2022)

Title: Bowel Frequency (night) and Urgent Defecation are Improved by Budesonide Foam in
Patients with Ulcerative Colitis: a retrospective observational study
Version: 6 Date: 13 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
I believe this paper has been appropriately revised and deserves to be published.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02394-8 (2022)

Title: Title # Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage-based saline-injection ultrasound: an  imaging
technique for remnant stone detection after retrograde cholangiopancreatography
Version: 2 Date: 23 Aug 2021
Reviewer's report:
I enjoyed reading this study entitled “Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage-based saline-
injection ultrasound: a novel imaging technique for remnant stone detection after retrograde
cholangiopancreatography”.
This study is interesting to show the efficacy of ENBD saline-injection US to detect remnant
stones.
However, there are some concerns about this study. The following comments should be
addressed.
#In Table 1-3, no unit were listed.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02394-8 (2022)

Title: Title # Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage-based saline-injection ultrasound: an  imaging
technique for remnant stone detection after retrograde cholangiopancreatography
Version: 2 Date: 24 Aug 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for opportunity of review this article, the tile of “Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage-
based saline-injection ultrasound: a novel imaging technique for remnant stone detection after
retrograde cholangiopancreatography”. Authors described the usefulness of US examination
using ENBD tube saline injection, and the detection rate of residual stones are significantly
increased compared to US alone. Similar article “The Value of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound-
Guided Contrast Injection via the Endoscopic Nasobiliary Drainage Duct in Diagnosing
Residual Common Bile Duct Stones. Biomed Res Int. 2020 ; 2020: 3281241. ” reported from
same institution and co-responding author (Dr. ShaoShan Tang). They studied large number of
patients compared to previous report, however evaluating points are almost same (common bile
duct length and diameter, imaging degree of common bile duct, detection of residual stones, with
or without ENBD saline irrigation). Thus, authors should re-write the contents of this article.
For example, simply, compare the detection rate of residual stones by three different methods
(balloon occluded ERC, US, and US with ENBD) and analyze the factor of false positive and
negative etc. There are some limitations and statistically questionable points. I would like to
comment as following.
Major
1. As mention above, the authors must analyze the data and emphasize the differences from the
previous report.
2. Abstract. Results are difficult to understand. “By occlusion cholangiogram, remnant stones
were suspected in 31 (10.3%) patients, and 26 (83.8%) were verified as true positives (sensitivity,
50.9%; specificity, 98.1%). Routine US studies proved suspicious in 13 (4.3%) patients, and
12 (92.3%) were verified as true positives (sensitivity, 23.5%; specificity, 99.6%)” Does
the calculation of sensitivities and specificity correct? According to the figure 1 and 2, the
calculation may be different.
3. The author needs to distinguish between stone and debris. I think that debris within 3 days
after treatment is often detected when ML was used for stone removal, and existence of debris
immediately after treatment will be discharged without any clinical problems. Could you analyze
the data excluding debris at the CBD?
4. It isn’t a “Novel imaging”. Authors have been described this technique previously.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02394-8 (2022)

Title: Title # Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage-based saline-injection ultrasound: an  imaging
technique for remnant stone detection after retrograde cholangiopancreatography
Version: 4 Date: 10 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
hank you for opportunity of revised manuscript, the tile of “Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage-
based saline-injection ultrasound: an imaging technique for remnant stone detection after
retrograde cholangiopancreatography”. Authors described the usefulness of US examination
using ENBD tube saline injection. Although the exam of US with ENBD tube saline injection
were useful, authors couldn’t answer reviewer comments well. For example, author defined that
only stones larger than 5 mm are considered to be meaningful. If authors couldn’t analyze the
data excluding debris, authors should compare the detection rate of CBD stone with and without
using ML. The response for major 1 is also insufficient. Unfortunately, the contents of the article
were similar to previous report and generally it is difficult to understand the images and tables.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02394-8 (2022)

Title: Title # Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage-based saline-injection ultrasound: an  imaging
technique for remnant stone detection after retrograde cholangiopancreatography
Version: 4 Date: 28 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?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS:
Interesting study. Authors corrected addressed errors.
I would like to congratulate the authors and thank them for addressing the corrections.
The authors corrected figure 2 after repeating the calculations.
Authors referred to the size of meaningful stone more than 5 mm; it will be helpful if this is
mentioned in the discussion while referring to previous validated studies.
Novel term has been corrected, as requested.
Limitations of this study should be added in the discussion section with any possible future
implications."
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02394-8 (2022)

Title: Title # Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage-based saline-injection ultrasound: an  imaging
technique for remnant stone detection after retrograde cholangiopancreatography
Version: 4 Date: 13 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
The purpose of the study that is to determine the accuracy of ENBD-based saline-injection US
for remnant stone detection after ERCP. So it would be interesting to focus the results of ENBD-
based saline-injection US compared to the gold standard that is ERCP with stone extraction.
Additional data should be included in the discussion or be a part of a comparative study.
This is a very interesting study that evaluates the accuracy of enhanced US imaging using ENBD
saline-injection. It is clear the advantages over traditional MRI and CT scan and EUS regarding
cost and simplicity.
There was no information regarding the indication for ENBD in the study.
The objective of the study was to determine the accuracy of ENBD-based saline-injection US
for remnant stone detection after ERCP and in the conclusion of the study there is no mention
of calculation of the accuracy with the collected data.
Line 116 – choledochal cysts
Line 233 and Line 278 and Line 307 – angiography is used as synonym for cholangiography
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02394-8 (2022)

Title: Title # Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage-based saline-injection ultrasound: an  imaging
technique for remnant stone detection after retrograde cholangiopancreatography
Version: 6 Date: 26 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
In clinical practice, ML is often used for treatment of bile duct stones.
Thus, authors should not exclude the cases with ML in this study.
I mentioned that the author needs to distinguish between stone and debris, and analyze the data
which excluding debris at the CBD if possible.
If authors couldn’t analyze the data neither excluding debris or comparing the detection rate of
CBD stone with or without using ML, previous form including cases with using ML (revised 1
data)  was considered as suitable data for this article.
Thank you for your effort.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02394-8 (2022)

Title: Title # Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage-based saline-injection ultrasound: an  imaging
technique for remnant stone detection after retrograde cholangiopancreatography
Version: 6 Date: 26 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting article : "Endoscopic nasobiliary
drainage-based saline-injection ultrasound: an  imaging technique for remnant stone detection
after retrograde cholangiopancreatography".
The article has improved with the corrections made by the authors.
The use of ENBD saline injections to enhance sonographic image is very interesting particulary
in pregnant patients and in patients with iodine allergy and can aggregate to the diagnostic
tools for remnant stone detection. However, the use of ENBD has some drawbacks since it is
uncomfortable to the patient and requires special care to avoid dislodgement and  is the reason
why it has been increasingly replaced by biliary stents.
The accuracy of ENBD-based saline-injection US that is the objective of this study is not
mentioned in the conclusion, only sensitivity and specificity. Estimated accuracy of 96.8%
should be mentioned in the results.
EUS for detection of remnant stone and biliary sludge after ERCP has been evaluated by Sagami
R et al  (2022) and Yeon-Ji K et al (2019). Although it is a more invasive procedure it seems
to be also very accurate and should be addressed.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02372-0 (2022)

Title: A Cross-Sectional Study Describing Peripheral Neuropathy in Patients with Symptoms of
Gastroparesis: Associations with Etiology, Gastrointestinal Symptoms, and Gastric Emptying
Version: 2 Date: 11 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors should be commended on investigating an important area of PN in idiopathic
gastroparesis. Little is known about idiopathic gastroparesis and to evaluate the prevalence co-
morbidities such as PN is of great importance.
However, this reviewer believes that the data is insufficient in addressing all study aims.
Study aim 1 (Determine prevalence of PN in IG) can be assessed with the current data. But
the data has insufficient statistically power to provide compelling analysis using idiopathic
gastroparesis with delayed emptying + PN (n=7) against other subgroups. Given aims 2 and 3
are based around this target group, a larger cohort (similar in size to its comparator groups) is
required for meaningful results.
Minor issues:
Abstract: Line 74 – Define IG
Line 293, 302, 380, 381: Peripheral neuropathy use abbreviation PN
Line 326: incomplete sentence “Almost twice as many patients with symptoms of…”
The use of HADS score for anxiety and depression as a measure of psychosocial symptoms
should be defined in the primary or secondary objectives of the study.
Major issues:
Q1 Please justify the use of NTSS-6 as a diagnostic tool for NP. Give your use of symptom
questionnaires (PAGI-SYM and GCSI) in this study to determine severity of gastroparesis, while
scintigraphy is used to diagnose gastroparesis. Would it not be more appropriate to use a nerve
function test and/or electromyography to diagnose NP?
Q2 There is a 5 times disparity in sample size between idiopathic gastroparetic patients with PN
(n=7) and without PN (n=36); and also a 5 times disparity in sample size between idiopathic
gastroparestic patients with normal emptying with PN (n=9) and without PN (n=47). How do
you account of potential bias in the PN group data?
Q3 Abdominal distention was significantly higher in idiopathic gastroparesis patients with PN.
However, distention is not significant higher in any other PN+ gastroparesis groups. Can the
authors explain the discrepancy in this result, shouldn’t abdominal distention be present in all PN
+ gastroparesis groups? Otherwise, is distention associated with PN or idiopathic gastroparesis?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02372-0 (2022)

Title: A Cross-Sectional Study Describing Peripheral Neuropathy in Patients with Symptoms of
Gastroparesis: Associations with Etiology, Gastrointestinal Symptoms, and Gastric Emptying
Version: 2 Date: 13 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
This clinical study by Moors et al. aims to determine the prevalence of PN in idiopathic
gastroparesis and assess if patients with symptoms of gastroparesis and PN differ in gastric
emptying. The study is well written, and the data support the conclusions.
I have minor comments regarding the statistical analysis shown in Figure2. In the methods
section, the authors stated that the results are shown with standard deviation. However, in Figure
2, the data are represented as percentages without standard deviation.
a. The authors should add to Figure 2 the standard deviation to give a better picture of the
variability among the patients used for the study.
b. For better visualization of the data and to facilitate the readers, the authors should add the
symbols of significance in Figure 2 when needed.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02383-x (2022)

Title: Endoscopic features and clinical course of patients with asymptomatic cecal ulcers
Version: 1 Date: 09 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
We authors presented the endoscopic features and clinical course of patients with asymptomatic
cecal ulcers with 24 cases. The case number is too small. There are only four patients with
significant ulcer without spontaneous regression in this study. It makes the predictors of
development of clinically significant diseases unreliable.  Besides, anti-platelets and anti-
coagulants are also major cases of cecal ulcers. Why do the authors only rule out NSAID users?
Pathological diagnosis of TB colitis is not sensitive enough, TB smear, culture and PCR are
required to rule out TB infection for the other two cases. Besides, we could not make the
diagnosis of IBD according to pathological finings only. Complete surveillance, including cross
section images and infection survey (blood, stool) is necessary. The case who had the isolated
cecal ulcer initially was diagnosed with UC years later due to proctitis.  We still can't make sure
the cecal ulcer is related to UC or other etiology. When the case was diagnosed as UC, was
the cecal ulcer still there?  To sum up, out of 24 patients, 20 patients had unknown etiologies
and only four cases could be analysed.   The data was not enough to explain the etiologies of
asymptomatic cecal ulcers.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02383-x (2022)

Title: Endoscopic features and clinical course of patients with asymptomatic cecal ulcers
Version: 1 Date: 18 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
I think the idea of this paper is good. Cecal ulcers are occasional findings during colonoscopy,
and the clinical significance is not well-explored. From this paper and the findings, we might
set a workup mode when we find cecal ulcers incidentally. Most cecal ulcers appear to be
spontaneously resolved. For patients with larger ulcer sizes (more than 1cm), irregular-shaped
ulcers, the deformed appearance of involved folds, or terminal ileum involvement, we should
emphasize the possibility of underlying disease entity or the risk of disease progression in the
patients. Terminal ileum inspection should be done if a cecal ulcer was detected. Workup of
intestinal tuberculosis should be done since tuberculosis is still a problem in Taiwan. Paying
attention to inflammatory bowel disease is also important. Surveillance of colonoscopy and
focus on the development of tuberculosis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis are highly
valuable if a cecal ulcer was incidentally found.
The most obvious limitation of this exam is the scarcity of cecal ulcers patient. Only 39 cases
were found to have cecal ulcers in 34036 exams. Such a condition makes you have problems
determining which parameters of cecal ulcers are important.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02383-x (2022)

Title: Endoscopic features and clinical course of patients with asymptomatic cecal ulcers
Version: 2 Date: 14 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Just like my previous feedback and comment, I think the idea of this paper is good. The clinical
significance of incidentally found asymptomatic cecal ulcers is not well-known. And we all
believe that some of them might be an early presentation of further disease entities.
In this paper and the findings, the authors provide us with some points about what characteristics
might be important.  Although the small numbers of cecal ulcers. We still could get some
information about what to pay attention to.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02384-w (2022)

Title: Clinical applicability of a new scoring system for population-based screening and risk
factors of gastric cancer in the Wannan region
Version: 4 Date: 19 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Authors of this manuscript did a very good job collecting the data and they set to address a very
important subject. They should therefore be commended  for that.
I have some comments:
1. The grammar in the manuscript is quite poor and it needs to be revised. In addition, there are
so many typos, too numerous to itemise, many the authors kindly attend to those.
2.  I do not understand the conclusion in the abstract, was it drawn form these data?
3. what is the difference between precancerous disease and lesion? Is a gastric ulcer
precancerous? I do not think this type of terminology is standard.
4. Presentation is the results is too crude. Authors need to condense some of the tables and
present infuriation that is relevant to the massage they are conveying. For example, having three
different tables on demographic characteristics is redundant.
5. Reporting of significance needs to be clear, Authors should indicate confidence intervals
In summary,  this manuscript needs to be improved in order to make it suitable for publication.