JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-26 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Epidemiologic study of chronic hepatitis B virus infection in male volunteer blood donors in Title: 
Karachi, Pakistan 
 4  27 June 2005 Version: Date: 
 Keith Sabin Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
It seems that you have dealt with most of my major concerns about your interpretation of the results. 
However, I think you have misunderstood some of the citations you use to justify your choice of 
interpretation. While anti-HBc is not protective from infection in the way anti-HBs is, it is still 
indicative of prior infection and therefore there is virtually zero probability of re-infection by HBV. 
There are few case reports of such re-infection, but it is by no means typical and one cannot 
assume, in an epidemiologic survey, that anti-HBc(+) individuals are susceptible. Further, anti-HBc is less likely to wane to undetectable level than anti-HBs, so misclassification with anti-HBc is less 
than that with anti-HBs. 
In any case, I think it would help if you add a simple statement regarding the case-control study, that 
ascertainment of controls' serostatus may have non-differentially led to controls who are not 
susceptible to HB infection due to previous infection or immunization, thereby biasing results toward 
the null. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-25 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Chylous ascites as the main manifestation of left ventricular dysfunction: Case report Title: 
 1  17 May 2005 Version: Date: 
 Juerg Reichen Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is the first report of chylous ascites associated with congestive heart failure. The case is well 
documented and nicely discussed. The finding is not surprising since chylous ascites is well documented in constrictive pericarditis but the association of pure congestive failure with this entity has not been described. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
1. There are several typographical errors (e.g. bilirrubin in the table). The manucsript should be 
reviewed by somebody fluent in English before final acceptance. 2. The authors should cite to studies by van der Merve et al. (J Hepatol 2000; 32:164) and Williams 
et al. (J Clin Gastroenterol 1990; 12:581) since they pertain directly to their case 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-24 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Eosinophilic gastroenteritis in a young girl - Long term remission under Montelukast Title: 
 2  5 June 2005 Version: Date: 
 david A schwartz Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is a well written and interesting case report that once again demonstrates the use of 
Montelukast in the treatment of eosinophilic gastroenteritis. Because it highlights the benefit of Montelukast in this setting I would recommend it be accepted. However, the authors must first correct the conclusion. Their conclusion that this is the the 1st example of long term remission of 
eosinophilic gastroenteritis under Montelukast is incorrect. Our 2001 paper (ref # 19 in this 
manuscript) reported a similar case with > 20 months followup. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
The authors must first correct the conclusion. Their conclusion that this is the the 1st example of 
long term remission of eosinophilic gastroenteritis under Montelukast is incorrect. Our 2001 paper 
(ref # 19 in this manuscript) reported a similar case with > 20 months followup 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-23 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 The Impact of Illness in Patients with Moderate to Severe Gastro Esophageal Reflux Disease Title: 
 1  8 March 2005 Version: Date: 
 Vic Velanovich Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General: Overall, this is another study demonstrating that gastroesophageal reflux disease has a 
significant quality of life impact. What is unique about this study is the attempt to correlate quality of 
life with patient-reported utility 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) I have major concerns about the statistical analysis. The data is reported as means with 95% confidence intervals and compared to data which was NOT part of this study using the Students' t-test. Firstly, although the data is continuous in nature, the authors do not test whether it 
follows a normal distribution (e.g., with a Wilk-Shapiro test). Secondly, in general, statisticians do not 
advocate taking a data set from one experiment and running tests of statistical inference with 
another data set, as the authors do here comparing SF-36 scores with Canadian and American scores from other studies. This gives the illusion of statistical objectivity which may not be justified. I 
have no problem with comparing data sets, but I would recommend doing it in a qualitative manner 
rather than with statistical tests. Lastly, the authors make value judgements definitions of symptom 
severity (Table 1) and strenght of correlations (p. 11, statistical analysis). How were these judgments 
made? Why should "cannot be ignored but does not influence my daily life" equate with a moderate 
problem? Why should a correlation of >0.5 be considered strong. 
My final concern deals with ref. #27. How different is the present study from the one the authors have in press? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Why did the authors choose the quality of life instruments they used? I do not think this will change 
the essence of the paper, but I think it is important to know. 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-23 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 The Impact of Illness in Patients with Moderate to Severe Gastro Esophageal Reflux Disease Title: 
 1  15 April 2005 Version: Date: 
 Stefan N Willich Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The article by El-Dika and coworkers deals with the impact of GERD on health realted quality of life 
(HRQOL) and work productivity, an important topic both from a public health from a methods perspective. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
The work aims to investigate the im Pact of GERD on HRQOL. According to the introduction (p.6), 
the validity of utility instruments as HRQOL measures is another aim. And according to the methods 
section “the primary aim of the study is the comparison of two different formats of administering” the 
standard gamble and the feeling thermometer. The authors could be more precise on the aim (or the 
primary and secondary aims) of their study. 
The impact of GERD on HRQOL and work productivity has been analysed in detail and with larger 
patient samples elsewhere. The interesting new aspect of this study is the use of utility instruments 
as measures of HRQOL in patients with GERD. The authors should put the focus of their paper 
more clearly on this part of their study. 
Subscales of SF-36 baseline are presented (table 6), but are not put in any context, e.g. correlated 
with the utility instruments or compared to other diseases, studies etc (besides: some N are 
missing). The authors compare the SF-36 component scales to data elsewhere published (table 7). 
Are these populations comparable in terms of gender, age, concomittant diseases etc? This should 
be mentioned in the discussion. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
Minor revisions include some missing data/informations: the correlations between the utility 
instruments and other questionnaires (QOLRAD, SF-36, Symptoms) are shown, but the change scores for the utility instruments are missing. Of course, the responsiveness to change of an 
HRQOL instrument is an important information. If possible, it should be added. Symptoms are 
assessed by the “four symptoms questionnaire”. Please explain if this is a previously validated instrument. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-23 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 The Impact of Illness in Patients with Moderate to Severe Gastro Esophageal Reflux Disease Title: 
 3  9 June 2005 Version: Date: 
 Stefan N Willich Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
All comments have been adequately addressed by the authors. 
We, therefore, recommend the present paper for publication. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-22 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Alterations of tumor suppressor gene p16INK4A in pancreatic ductal carcinoma Title: 
 1  21 February 2005 Version: Date: 
 aldo scarpa Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The manuscript by Sharma et al describes the analysis of p16 in a series of primary pancreatic 
ductal cancers. In particular, the authors evaluated the mutational and methylation status as well as the presence of homozygous deletions and immunohistochemical status. The authors found a proportion of mutated cases and cases with homozygous deletions in proportions similar to 
previously published series, although the frequency of methylation was significantly higher than 
previous reports. The paper is acceptably written. 
The report addresses the paucity of data about p16 status in primary pancreatic adenocarcinoma, 
especially in an Asian population. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
1. With regards to the assay for homozygous deletion, this reviewer is somewhat perplexed by the 
author’s statement that the primary cancers used for analysis of homozygous deletion contained more than 90% tumors cells, which would seem rather unusual considering that these were primary pancreatic ductal cancers. In fact, cancer cellularity in this type of cancer is notably very low in the 
vast majority of cases. Perhaps the authors could comment on this. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
The authors also might wish to make some commentary on the differences in methylation frequency 
observed, especially in the light of a previous report suggesting that geographic variations in the 
methylation status of various CpG islands indicate that environmental factors may be responsible for 
these differences (J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002 May 15;94(10):755). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-22 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Alterations of tumor suppressor gene p16INK4A in pancreatic ductal carcinoma Title: 
 1  28 February 2005 Version: Date: 
 Stephan A Hahn Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The study is mainly confirmatory and offers no new insights into the contribution of p16 to pancreatic 
tumorigenesis. The sequencing method (SSCP) is only a screening method and lacks sensitivity. 
Homozygous deletion (HD) analysis on non-microdissected tissues (here tissues of <90% cellularity have been used) is difficult, as 5-10% of contaminating normal tissue are likely to lead in standard 
PCRs to a positive signal, precluding a sensitive assessment of the HD status. The higher frequency 
of methylation positive tumors is in striking disagreement to previously published studies. This 
finding is not adequately discussed and could be a technical problem. At least one important study 
(Fukushima, N., Sato, N., Ueki, T., Rosty, C., Walter, K. M., Wilentz, R. E., Yeo, C. J., Hruban, R. H., 
and Goggins, M. Aberrant methylation of preproenkephalin and p16 genes in pancreatic 
intraepithelial neoplasia and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Am J Pathol, 160: 1573-1581, 2002) reporting a 27% frequency of methylation positive pancreatic carcinoma is not referenced in the manuscript. 
In summary, the lack of novelty and the drawbacks of the methods applied precludes in my opinion 
the qualification of this manuscript for publication. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Reject because too small an advance to publish What next?: 
 An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a scientific/medical Level of interest: 
journal
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-22 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Alterations of tumor suppressor gene p16INK4A in pancreatic ductal carcinoma Title: 
 4  29 April 2005 Version: Date: 
 Stephan A Hahn Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
see above 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Reject because too small an advance to publish What next?: 
 An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a scientific/medical Level of interest: 
journal
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-22 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Alterations of tumor suppressor gene p16INK4A in pancreatic ductal carcinoma Title: 
 4  13 May 2005 Version: Date: 
 aldo scarpa Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have addressed the query in an acceptable manner. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-22 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Alterations of tumor suppressor gene p16INK4A in pancreatic ductal carcinoma Title: 
 4  17 May 2005 Version: Date: 
 Peter Muscarella Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have sufficiently addressed the previously noted concerns and I believe that the 
manuscript is suitable for publication in BMC Gastroenterology. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-21 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Clinical presentation of abdominal tuberculosis in HIV seronegative adults Title: 
 2  26 May 2005 Version: Date: 
 Gary Maartens Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I am happy with their changes. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-20 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 The presence of the proteolysis-inducing factor in urine does not predict the malignancy of Title: 
pancreatic tumours 
 1  14 April 2005 Version: Date: 
 Walter Halangk Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Distinction between benign and malignant pancreatic diseases is a very actual question in clinical 
pancreatology. To this end, authors tested the applicability of the detection of proteolysis-inducing 
factor in urine, a protein that has been recently detected in various tumours. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
The clear-cut detection of PIF in urine samples is the crucial point of the work, but the authors did 
not give any graphic illustration of this assay. Therefore, a representative Western Blot should be 
necessarily included in the manuscript. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
In first paragraphs of the Abstract and the Background it is not correctly defined whether the term 
"benign tumours" also includes chronic pancreatitis. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-20 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 The presence of the proteolysis-inducing factor in urine does not predict the malignancy of Title: 
pancreatic tumours 
 1  15 April 2005 Version: Date: 
 Matthias LOEHR Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is a clean study with a clear objective. The result is negative, however, sufficiently important to be published. Some minor handcrafting issues must be resolved prior to publication in any journal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
What was the intra- and inter-assay variability? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
Methods: how long was the dialysis time? overnight? 
Reference for the PIF antibody by Mr. Tisdale is missing 
Which CA 19-9 assay (brand) is used. There are two currently in use which have slightly but 
significantly different upper levels of normal (cut-off) 
There is certainly a typo on the standard deviation in PIF negative patients ("25203") 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-20 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 The presence of the proteolysis-inducing factor in urine does not predict the malignancy of Title: 
pancreatic tumours 
 2  6 May 2005 Version: Date: 
 Matthias LOEHR Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The paper is fine now. The authors have fully addressed the points raised. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-20 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 The presence of the proteolysis-inducing factor in urine does not predict the malignancy of Title: 
pancreatic tumours 
 2  20 May 2005 Version: Date: 
 Walter Halangk Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
acceptable in the present form 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
there are no competing interest
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-19 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Stability of Age-related Colon Stem Cell Methylation After Neo-adjuvant Therapy in a Patient Title: 
with Attenuated Familial Adenomatous Polyposis 
 1  22 March 2005 Version: Date: 
 Yasuhito Yuasa Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
Major point 
1. Although the subject is important, the authors analyzed only one patient, which is too few to deduce any conclusion. More cases should be analyzsed. 
Minor point 
1. Table 1 should be deleted and combined with Fig. 2. 
 Reject because scientifically unsound What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-19 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Stability of Age-related Colon Stem Cell Methylation After Neo-adjuvant Therapy in a Patient Title: 
with Attenuated Familial Adenomatous Polyposis 
 1  3 April 2005 Version: Date: 
 Minoru Toyota Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
In this manuscript, Kim et al examined methylation status of two CpG rich regions in colorectal crypts 
from the patient with attenuated familial adenomatous polyposis. Using the DNA obtained before 
and after chemotherapy, they found that environmental changes did not significantly affect crypt 
methylation pattern. They concluded that age-related methylation reflects epigenetic errors in stem 
cells that slowly accumulate in a clock-like manner. Overall, experiments were well done, and the interpretations and conclusions are clearly presented. The information shown in this manuscript may 
be useful for the readers of BMC Gastroenterology. In suitability of publication, several important 
issues as below to be solved. 
Specific points. 
1. The authors examined two CpG rich regions they term CSX and BGN. The authors should 
describe these two regions in more detail. 
2. The authors concluded that age-related methylation in stem cell is not affected by environmental 
changes. However, there is no description about age-related methylation of CSX and BGN in this 
manuscript. Because the patients they examined is 22 years old, the methylation may they examined 
may not be associated with aging. One plausible way is to change the title to “Stability of colon stem 
cell methylation after neo-adjuvant therapy in …..”. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-19 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Stability of Colon Stem Cell Methylation After Neo-adjuvant Therapy in a Patient with Title: 
Attenuated Familial Adenomatous Polyposis 
 2  30 April 2005 Version: Date: 
 Yasuhito Yuasa Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
The revised manuscript is now acceptable as a case report. 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-19 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Stability of Colon Stem Cell Methylation After Neo-adjuvant Therapy in a Patient with Title: 
Attenuated Familial Adenomatous Polyposis 
 2  2 May 2005 Version: Date: 
 Minoru Toyota Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
The manuscript by Kim et al. is now improved after revision, and the manuscript can be 
recommended for publication. 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests' below
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-18 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 A conscious mouse model of gastric ileus using clinically relevant endpoints. Title: 
 1  25 October 2004 Version: Date: 
 Anthony J Bauer Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
The article submits the methodological premise that ileus can be equated with food intake (which 
would also result in changes in fecal output). Although, in some experimental models this may be 
experimentally valid many factors contribute to food intake, some of which have no barring on 
gastrointestinal motility. It is this reviewer’s understanding that “ileus” pertains to gastrointestinal 
motility and not the behavior to seek and ingest intake food. Therefore, decreased food intake does 
not equal ileus, as can be concluded from this manuscripts data on LPS. Although, food intake is not 
an invalid measurement – it is further removed from a direct gastrointestinal transit measurement. 
Hence, mechanistic interpretation becomes difficult. The results presented in this paper confirms 
previously published papers using more direct measures of gastrointestinal motility. 
 Reject because scientifically unsound What next?: 
 Too insignificant to warrant publication in any journal Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
No to all the above. 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-18 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 A conscious mouse model of gastric ileus using clinically relevant endpoints. Title: 
 2  8 March 2005 Version: Date: 
 Yvette Tache Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
p. 13, 1st paragraph, there is no comment on the significant effect of LPS at 0.4 mg/kg on mean arterial blood pressure. Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong 
use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct. 
Fig. 11 will be better expressed including real values and saline group within the graph. It is not clear 
why only one parameter is significantly different in the 2 ml/kg LPS dose while values seems to be 
10-20% of control. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-18 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 A conscious mouse model of gastric ileus using clinically relevant endpoints. Title: 
 2  17 March 2005 Version: Date: 
 Anthony J Bauer Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
As when I initially reviewed this manuscript, the authors "inappropriately" use the term "ileus" 
throughout the manuscript. Ileus means a motility delay, food intake and defecation parameters may 
have nothing to do with ileus. Maybe, a work around would be for the authors to carefully define 
ileus in the manuscript, as their interpretation of the word appears different from the literature. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-17 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Hepatocellular carcinoma and the penetrance of HFE C282Y mutations: a cross sectional Title: 
study. 
 1  8 March 2005 Version: Date: 
 Mark Worwood Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Willis et al 
This paper is an extension of earlier studies involving fewer patients from Norwich. The analysis of 
144 cases allows a much close estimate of penetrance. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
Detailed comments 
1. Page 4, para 2, line 5: I am surprised that the authors are not quoting their work on arthritis at this 
point. 
2. Page 5, para 2: presumably any patients referred from Norwich to Cambridge have not been 
counted twice (later section of text implies this). 
3. Page 5, para 4: is there a reference to the method for extracting DNA from tissue sections? 
4. Page 19, Table 1: is there any reason for the discrepancy in forward and reverse primer 
concentrations? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
None 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-17 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Hepatocellular carcinoma and the penetrance of HFE C282Y mutations: a cross sectional Title: 
study. 
 2  28 April 2005 Version: Date: 
 Ernest Beutler Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have satisfactorily responded the previous comments. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-17 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Hepatocellular carcinoma and the penetrance of HFE C282Y mutations: a cross sectional Title: 
study. 
 2  29 April 2005 Version: Date: 
 Arne Åsberg Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I have no further comments. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-16 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Idiopathic portal hypertension complicating systemic sclerosis: Case report Title: 
 1  4 March 2005 Version: Date: 
 Radha K Dhiman Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have reported an association between progressive systemic sclerosis and idiopathic 
portal hypertention, which could be a coincidental or a causal association. The manuscript is well 
written, however some points need consideration for inclusion in â €œDiscussionâ €. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) IPH is commonly seen in India and Japan. Authors should include references of major studies from Japan and India in patients with IPH (Dhiman RK, Chawla Y, Vasishta RK et al. Non-cirrhotic portal 
fibrosis (Idiopathic portal hypertension): experience with 151 patients and a review of the literature. 
J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2001; 17: 6â €“16 and Okuda K, Kono K, Ohnishi K et al. Clinical study of 
eighty-six cases of idiopathic portal hypertension and comparison with cirrhosis with splenomegaly. Gastroenterology 1984; 86: 600â €“10.) The largest study from India also observed female 
preponderance in Indian patients (Dhiman et al). 
Authors should also discuss whether the association between these two disorders is causal or 
merely a coincidental. In Japan, autoimmune disorders are frequently associated with IPH; in a 
questionnaire-based study about 12% of cases with IPH were found to be associated with one or 
more autoimmune disease and one quarter of them had hyperglobulinemia. The reported autoimmune diseases were systemic lupus erythematosus, progressive systemic sclerosis, chronic thyroiditis, mixed connective tissue disease, Sjogren syndrome, autoimmune hemolytic anemia, etc. 
(Saito K, Nakanuma Y, Takegoshi K et al. Non-specific immunological abnormalities and association 
of autoimmune diseases in idiopathic portal hypertension. A study by questionnaire. 
Hepatogastroenterology 1993; 40: 163â €“6.) An immunological basis for IPH pathogenesis has also 
been suggested (Terada T, Nakanuma Y, Hoso M, Obata H. Expression of HLA-DR antigen on 
hepatic vascular endothelial cells in idiopathic portal hypertension. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 1991; 84: 
303â €“7). Therefore, a causal relationship between these two disorders is a possibility. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-16 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Idiopathic portal hypertension complicating systemic sclerosis: Case report Title: 
 1  15 March 2005 Version: Date: 
 Yasuni Nakanuma Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
BMC welcomes case reports that fit one of the following descriptions. 
1. A well described case or series of cases that can be used for educational purposes, as a 
necessary reminder of an important clinical lesson, or that present a diagnostic or therapeutic challenge. 
2. A well described case or series of cases that suggest the need for change in practice or thinking in 
terms of diagnosis or prognosis but not in terms of preventive or therapeutic intervention, which 
require stronger evidence. 3. A well described case or series of cases that suggest an association between two conditions. 
This reviewer thinks: This case report fulfill 1-3. 
When assessing the work, please consider the above, as well as the following issues: 
1. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data deposition: if not, in 
what ways? 
Yes 
2. Is the writing acceptable? 
Yes 
This paper is well written. This paper has originality. This paper is acceptable at the present form. 
Level of interest: Very high 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-16 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Idiopathic portal hypertension complicating systemic sclerosis: Case report Title: 
 2  16 May 2005 Version: Date: 
 Radha K Dhiman Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
Revision is not required now. Authors have suitably changed the manuscript. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-15 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Clinicians' management strategies for patients with symptoms from the upper gastrointestinal Title: 
tract: a qualitative approach 
 1  8 March 2005 Version: Date: 
 Johanna I Westbrook Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This paper is well written and reports the results of a very interesting study examining the variation in 
clinicians’ responses to a series of cases studies. 
The results build on previous research demonstrating the considerable variation in clinicians’ 
treatment responses, and also illustrates the extent to which clinicians believe their colleagues 
behaviour is similar to their own. The study approach was well designed and the results were clearly 
described. 
My only suggestions are around typographical errors and a few grammatical errors. (see below) 
I would have no hesitation in recommending this paper for publication. I thought it was a very neat 
study and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
Page 4, paragraph 2 line 5 the word ‘interindividually’ needs to be changed. 
Page 12 paragraph 3 line 2. The authors state “ the validity of the information yielded in the 
interviews in our study could be questioned” I don’t think validity is the correct word in this statement. 
I believe the authors mean that the clinicians failed to provide correct information to this question as 
they left out many of the other factors worthy of consideration. 
Page 13 paragraph 1 line 3 I suggest the following change to the sentence “….irrespective of how 
much it [in fact] differs from that of …” 
Page 13 paragraph 2 line 7 replace format with form 
Line 9 change outmost to utmost Line 10 this sentence does not make sense and needs to be reworded. Paragraph 3 line 1 remove ‘the’ so that it reads ..”letting patients’ preferences..” 
Page 14 
Conclusions Line 1 change add to adds 
Line 1 reword ‘ ..that even in cases where there is consensus in the scientific literature on treatment, 
variations in ..” 
Paragraph 2 line 4 & 5 it should read ‘’..together with cost-effectiveness as a priority”. 
The last sentence of the conclusion needs to be re-worded as it is not clear. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests