JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02592-4 (2022)

Title: Assessing Clinical Trial Failure Risk Factors And Reasons In Gastric Cancer
Version: 2 Date: 24 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors intensively revised their manuscript.
As for the reason to discuss specific factors for gastric cancer, the addition of the description
about the method of their categorization, and the classification of good and bad reason, I satisfied
for their revisions.
In the previous review, I presumed the endpoint of their logistic analysis is good and bad reason
of terminating studies they included. But after the revision about the classification of good and
bad reason, the results of logistic regression models are exactly the same. The authors should
clarify the endpoint of their logistic analysis. Is the endpoint of their logistic analysis “trial
termination” regardless of the reason of terminating studies? Is it reasonable? And if so, as the
“trial termination” include the censored cases, I think Cox hazard model is appropriate for such
analysis.
As other reviewers pointed out, the paper could be improved with tighter structural and English
language editing. Part of mistakes about the spelling are revised but their manuscript still has
many mistakes about separation of words. Their manuscript should be edited by a native English
speaker.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02592-4 (2022)

Title: Assessing Clinical Trial Failure Risk Factors And Reasons In Gastric Cancer
Version: 3 Date: 22 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
I checked the revised version of the manuscript. The result of Logistic regression was revised.
Some parts of their manuscript were rephrased and the mistakes about word separation were
fixed.
In the abstract, the effect of anticipated accrual combined with multi-centre is described 0.72
(P-value=0.025). On the other hand, the odds ratio of anticipated accrual combined with multi-
centre is described 1.21 in Table 3. Please check the value of odds ratio. Furthermore, as the
odds ratio is key data of their manuscript, it should be better to describe also in the result section.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02567-5 (2022)

Title: Global and national trends in years of life lost and years lived with disability caused by
 three common gastrointestinal cancers from 1990 to 2019
Version: 1 Date: 02 Nov 2021
Reviewer:  Paulina Paciej-go##biowska
Reviewer's report:
1. The title of the manuscript is "Global and national trends in years of life lost and years lived
with disability caused by gastrointestinal cancers from 1990 to 2019". Why did the Authors
decide not to include pancreatic cancer in their analysis?
2. Abstract: "Among countries, the largest decrease in trend of YLLs was that caused by
stomacher cancer in the Republic of Korea (EAPC = #5.88, 95%CI: #6.07 to #5.69). However,
the most pronounced increasing trend of YLDs was that caused by colorectal cancer in China
(EAPC = 4.63, 95%CI: 4.31 to 4.94)". I guess the Authors decided to highlight these results
because they are relevant to their location, but I am not sure these are the most important for
"average" reader.
2. DALY abbreviation should be explained while used for the first time in the text.
3. Background section: "During the period 2006-2016, the age-Standardized rate (ASR) of
YLLs caused by stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, and esophageal cancer had changed with
the estimated #24.7%, #8.9%, and #22.0%, respectively[3]. Globally , the number of DALYs
caused by colorectal cancer was 19.0 million in 2017, comprise of 95% from YLLs sand 5%
from YLDs; DALYs caused by stomach cancer was 19.1 million in 2019, with the 98% came
from YLLs and 2% from YLDs [4]". What was the proportion of YLLs and YLDs for esophageal
cancer?
4. Background section: "The clinical outcomes of gastrointestinal cancers were mainly promoted
by the progress in screening, treatment and management [5]. For example, population-based
early screening programs have been available since 1990s, and progress in the survival
of colorectal cancer were achieved in the United States and Japan [6]. Meanwhile, China
government had taken actions to improve the health care systems [7, 8], and the YLLs of stomach
cancer and colorectal cancer declined in recent years [9, 10]."  I would rather get more detailed
information on intervention mentioned above.
5. Material and methods section: "YLLs are the difference between death cases and standard life
expectancy at the age of death". I disagree with this statement. The definition of YLLs should
be clarified.
6. Discussion section: "YLDs caused by colorectal cancer had obvious increasing trends in
China, in where appeared the increasing burden of colorectal cancer in the rural areas [36], and
a significant upward trend in the youths (aged 15-49 years) [37]". Could this topic be discussed
in more detail?
7. The manuscript should be revised by English translator - many language errors appear in the
text.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02567-5 (2022)

Title: Global and national trends in years of life lost and years lived with disability caused by
 three common gastrointestinal cancers from 1990 to 2019
Version: 1 Date: 03 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Comments
1. Is it possible to report GIT incidence, death, DALYs and their rates instead report separate
tumor?
2. What are the trends of GIT tumor? Percentage from total tumor?
3. All numbers should be round off (137.98, 264.15, and 282.51 per 100,000)…..rewrite like
138, 260, 283 per 100,000
4. Line 71-78, No reference …Why?
5. Line 79-88…why u used old reference…..Please the most recent GLOBOCAN and GBD 2021
6. Globally, the number of YLLs caused by esophageal cancer was 11515.94×103(95%
uncertainty interval [UI]: 10243.45×103 to 12787.77×103) in 2019
..This is vague and not attract the reader…Rewrite as 11.5million (10.2-12.8million)…..All
numbers in the main manuscript, tables and figures should rewrite
like this
7. Report with Global, Regional and nation…..you did not investigate the trends interms of
nation
8. Discussion ….It is clear and attractive
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02567-5 (2022)

Title: Global and national trends in years of life lost and years lived with disability caused by
 three common gastrointestinal cancers from 1990 to 2019
Version: 3 Date: 05 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Paulina Paciej-go##biowska
Reviewer's report:
In the response to reviewers, the authors state that: "According to the definition of disease,
pancreatic cancer is one of the common malignant tumors of digestive tract, but not
gastrointestinal tumor".  I kindly ask for the reference to this statement.
Besides, I do not have more comments. The paper have been corrected in line with Reviewers'
suggestions.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02567-5 (2022)

Title: Global and national trends in years of life lost and years lived with disability caused by
 three common gastrointestinal cancers from 1990 to 2019
Version: 3 Date: 09 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  David Laith Rawaf
Reviewer's report:
Great responses to initial review comments. Overall reads very well.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02567-5 (2022)

Title: Global and national trends in years of life lost and years lived with disability caused by
 three common gastrointestinal cancers from 1990 to 2019
Version: 5 Date: 03 Nov 2022
Reviewer:  David Laith Rawaf
Reviewer's report:
Good paper - taken on board feedback for resubmission.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02567-5 (2022)

Title: Global and national trends in years of life lost and years lived with disability caused by
 three common gastrointestinal cancers from 1990 to 2019
Version: 5 Date: 03 Nov 2022
Reviewer:  Paulina Paciej-go##biowska
Reviewer's report:
I do not have more questions.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02553-x (2022)

Title: The association of fecal calprotectin and respiratory exacerbation in cystic fibrosis patients
Version: 2 Date: 30 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Re: The association of fecal calprotectin and respiratory exacerbation in cystic fibrosis patients
This article is easy to read and results are stated clearly but is repetitive
Premise is clear with fecal samples collected and calprotectin levels measured at the first
exacerbation visit, two weeks after antibiotic therapy, and at time of next exacerbation.
Calprotectin levels decreased in line with treatment for pulmonary exacerbation before rising
again at time of next exacerbation.
However there is little discussion re what calprotectin is and why may be elevated or important
in CF
Authors state that ‘fecal calprotectin level could be considered as a diagnostic tool and an
index to follow the response to treatment in CF pulmonary exacerbations’.  While this article
demonstrates that fecal calprotectin levels changes post exacerbation / antibiotic therapy it does
not address what the mechanism or clinical use of this finding is
Additional points:
The mean calprotectin level in females admitted with respiratory exacerbation was substantially
greater than that of male patients. This is not adequately addressed.
Fecal calprotectin levels vary with age and  need more consideration of normal ranges in different
age groups
Table 3 is not clear and needs improving
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02553-x (2022)

Title: The association of fecal calprotectin and respiratory exacerbation in cystic fibrosis patients
Version: 2 Date: 14 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript.Fecal calprotectin (FC) is an important
marker of gastrointestinal inflammation, but has although be attributed to swallowed sputum. It
is difficult to distinguish, but the the reduction of increased sputum is a hallmark of treatment
of pulmonary exacerbation. The well written and discussed study add additional value to the
limited data in the literature .
Was there any difference in FC in the 50% of patients, which had a recurrence after 100 days,
compared to the patients, which did not had a recurrence?
Please add a discussion about limitations  like small patient group.
Please report the pancreatic status - all PI?
Please report on bacterial infection and antibiotic treatment (broad-spectrum or small spectrum
antibiotics?).
The absolute weight and height (Table 1) did not well characterize the patients from a different
age-groups. A weight or height - Z-Score would be more appropriate. The BMI z-Score is
although helpful and is appropriate. What reference did you use to calculate BMI- Z-Score?.
Please report the number of patients  for each age group/female (Table 3).
Please quantify hemoptysis (severe (> 250 ml/day) or mild/scanty (Table 2) ?
The clinical manifestation in Table 2 could be reduced (excluding Clubbing, Osteoporosis,
Pallor, Tooth Decay, respiratory distress). What is covered by other manifestations? Are there
any GI-symptoms ?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02553-x (2022)

Title: The association of fecal calprotectin and respiratory exacerbation in cystic fibrosis patients
Version: 7 Date: 23 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for addressing the comments and feedback.
Minor comments:
Table 3 is in conflict with the text. This should be checked. As the information is in the text
the table could be deleted.
The information of table 2 could be included in the text and the table deleted.
In the text you mention: "At the time of the first visit, the mean level of calprotectin in the age
group of 1-6 years was significantly higher than the age groups of 7-12 years and 13-18 years.
" In figure 3 you show the opposite.  Please verify!
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02521-5 (2022)

Title: Potential association of eEF1A dimethylation at lysine 55 in the basal area of Helicobacter
pylori-eradicated gastric mucosa with the risk of gastric cancer: A retrospective observational
study
Version: 4 Date: 22 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
The answers the authors responded were well addressed to my review .
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02582-6 (2022)

Title: Prognostic clinical indexes for prediction of acute gangrenous cholecystitis and acute
purulent cholecystitis
Version: 4 Date: 17 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
I congratulate authors for performing this intresting work wich attempted to establish a predictive
model for the differentiations of APC, AGC and GC from CC using clinical indexes. I found
the idea very original. Nevertheless i have some questions and concerns:
-First, it's about the small simple size (114 patients)
-Second, I would ask about the distinction between GC and AGC, i advise to include this in
the same group
-Third, i advise to use the MannWhitney U-test instead of t-test for continus variables
- Forth, the Tokyo Guidlines 2013 should be replaced by Tokyo Guidlines 2018
-Fifth, the authors affirmed that: ''Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was the first choice of surgery.
'' but we see that 97 patients underwent direct laparotomy, did the authors have an explanation?
Moreover, the rate of conversion was very high (more than 50%) did the authors have an
explanation?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02582-6 (2022)

Title: Prognostic clinical indexes for prediction of acute gangrenous cholecystitis and acute
purulent cholecystitis
Version: 4 Date: 16 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
Chen et al. performed retrospective study to identify preoperatively predictive factors for
severe cholecystitis, such as gangrenous cholecystitis, acute gangrenous cholecystitis, and acute
purulent cholecystitis. This is interesting subject, however, the description of manuscript is
immature. I have the following comments and questions.
1) This study has limitations as it is a retrospective study with a small number of included
patients. A description of these limitations is required in discussion.
2) The baseline characteristics of the study population were not described in this study. The
patients’ characteristics can also influence their surgical outcomes. Please add the patients’
baseline characteristics (ex, Age, ASA, BMI, previous abdominal surgery history, etc)
3) Authors described “Preoperative prediction of severe cholecystitis (SC) is of great
significance, as the mortality and complication rate of SC is much higher that of chronic
cholecystitis. However, your study does not show surgical outcomes such as operation time,
intraoperative and postoperative complication, and mortality for each diagnosis. Please add the
surgical outcomes.
4) Recently, even in patients with severe cholecystitis, most cholecystectomy is performed
laparoscopically. However, in your study, most patients underwent open cholecystectomy. This
needs further explanation.
5) Authors showed that the GBWT, the percentage of neutrophils and WBC could be used to
differentiate APC, AGC, GC and CC, using ROC curve analysis. However, in order to confirm
the accuracy of this analyses, it is considered that multivariate analysis including other co-
variants that may have an effect is required.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02582-6 (2022)

Title: Prognostic clinical indexes for prediction of acute gangrenous cholecystitis and acute
purulent cholecystitis
Version: 4 Date: 19 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript. The authors investigated the clinical
indexes to distinguish acute severe cholecystitis from chronic cholecystitis. It is important to
diagnose severe cholecystitis quickly and accurately for the treatment.
Major concerns:
1. It is not clear why the authors compared acute severe cholecystitis to chronic cholecystitis.
(It is easy to distinguish “acute severe” cholecystitis from “chronic” cholecystitis without novel
indexes.)
2. The definition of severe cholecystitis is ambiguous. (i.e. Are there any other acute cholecystitis
patients with moderate inflammation during the study period?)
3. Classifications of cholecystitis (AGC, GA, APC) are not generally used.
4. Because this study focused on the prediction of “severe” cholecystitis, elective surgery should
be excluded.
Minor concerns:
1. This study investigated clinical indexes to predict severe cholecystitis by comparing it to
“chronic cholecystitis”. The study title should be modified.
2. Treatment strategies for acute cholecystitis (emergency/delayed cholecystectomy,
percutaneous drainage, etc.) in authors’ institution should be briefly mentioned.
3. The reasons of mortality should be mentioned.
4. Perioperative outcomes (surgical characteristics, ICU stay, hospital stay, etc.) are
recommended to be shown in Supplemental data.
5. Table legends are not correct. “underwent cholecystitis” should be “underwent
cholecystectomy”.
6. Some cited references do not match the sentences ([5], [15], [16]).
In Discussion, reference [5] was cited, “the mortality rate of SC in much higher than that
of chronic cholecystitis (CC) [5]”. However, the study of reference [5] excluded chronic
cholecystitis.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02582-6 (2022)

Title: Prognostic clinical indexes for prediction of acute gangrenous cholecystitis and acute
purulent cholecystitis
Version: 6 Date: 18 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors have answered to most of the queries. However, the following needs to be addressed:
1. The authors mentioned in the response “our hospital also carried out many percutaneous
gallbladder drainage treatment”. It is even more important to include treatment strategies for
revealing the characteristics of this study patients precisely. Why the patients of this study
underwent surgery ?
2. The rate of emergency/elective surgery of the 3 groups should be included in the manuscript
or Table 1.
3. In the Background of this study, the authors mentioned the severity of AGC/APC (higher
mortality rate, need of intensive care). However, the rates of postoperative complications and
mortality in this study were 5.26 and 3.51%. Because the cause of death was not related to
surgical complications, the rates seem to be low. Therefore, perioperative outcomes (surgical
characteristics, ICU stay, hospital stay, etc.) are recommended to be shown.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02582-6 (2022)

Title: Prognostic clinical indexes for prediction of acute gangrenous cholecystitis and acute
purulent cholecystitis
Version: 7 Date: 05 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Ahmed Nassar
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for re-submitting your manuscript. I have the following comments:
1- In your methods , you mentioned that all emergency cases had contraindication for drainage
and so, had emergency surgery. What was your hospital's policy in management of acute
cholecystitis (like trial with antibiotics first)? is drainage the first option for all cases? What are
the indication for intervention (either drainage or surgery) in your hospital . can you also refer
to Tokyo guidelines regarding this. Was there any attempted failed drainage and hence need for
surgery? Can you please clarify this?
2- Can you add duration of acute symptoms for 3 groups? this may affect US findings
3- Would you be able to specify at what time points routine blood examination (RBE) and US
were performed. were these done at similar intervals for all 3 groups?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02533-1 (2022)

Title: MiRNA-374b-5p and miRNA-106a-5p are related to inflammatory bowel disease via
regulating IL-10 and STAT3 signaling pathways
Version: 7 Date: 24 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is a very interesting manuscript. The authors investigated the role of miR-374-5p and
miR-160a-5p in regulating IBD development. The purpose of the article is original, and such
an important issue. The study is well designed. The introduction is objective and appropriate,
as well as the aims of the study. The methodological process was adequate and the results are
consistent.
I suggest a few reviews:
1. I suggest adding the number of Ethics Committee in the item “2. Materials and Methods” too,
even if that is already at the end of the manuscript.
2. I suggest including a table describing/contenting the RT-qPCR primer sequences, which are
in item “2.3 RT-qPCR”. I think that could be better for understanding.
3. It is important to add the code of antibodies used for Western Blotting analyses. In the item
“2.7 Western blotting”, the code of antibodies for “JAK1, IL-10” used is missing.
4. I also think that is important include the weak points of the study that were not mentioned.
Please do so, if you consider there is space for improvement.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02533-1 (2022)

Title: MiRNA-374b-5p and miRNA-106a-5p are related to inflammatory bowel disease via
regulating IL-10 and STAT3 signaling pathways
Version: 7 Date: 06 Sep 2022
Reviewer:  Mojtaba Shohan
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the authors
Pre-translational and post-translational modifications are recognized as one of the most
important pathways regulating the expression and secretion of many targeted genes and proteins
which are involved in inflammatory diseases progression. As cytoplasmic regulators, MiRNAs
are recently have been given full attention to be used in biomarker-based diagnosis, treatment
strategies and patients follow up in many cancers and inflammatory diseases. According to
the latest reports in the literature, MiRNA-374b-5p and MiRNA-106-5p are dual functional
non-coding small RNAs that are significantly involved in tumor suppressing (non-small cells
lung cancer), tumor metastasis and invasion (gastric cancer cells), pro-inflammatory function
in vascular thrombosis (by suppressing IL-10 expression), anti-inflammatory effects in obesity
and insulin resistance regulation, and actually plays as a regulator of inflammation in IBDs
patients. So far, we know that the IL-10/STAT3 axis is considerably involved in IBDs related
inflammation. Interestingly, for the first time Dongjie Li et.al are reporting novel findings in this
paper regarding the relation between IL-10/STAT3 axis and MiRNA-374b-5p/MiRNA-106-5p
upregulation and inhibition in IBDs patients. By performing various laboratory analyses
such as western blotting, flow cytometry, qRT-PCR relative gene expression evaluation,
bioinformatic analysis and DLR assay Dongjie et.al are clearly demonstrating the central
role of MiRNA-374b-5p/MiRNA-106-5p in the regulation of IL-10/STAT3 mediated anti-
inflammatory effects in IBDs. In my opinion, good writing, exact analysis and grouping the
samples, integrity of the text and well-discussed results are the features of this paper and it could
be added to the literature as an opening window followed by the next researches clarifying more
evidences regarding the topic. There are few minor revisions that is recommended to the authors
before publication. Here are my minor concerns:
1- In the caption of table 1, please give brief definition about the disease classifications for UC
and CD patients.  E1/E2/E3 for UC and L1 to L4 for CD patients.
2- It is recommended to the authors that evaluate the expression of this MiRNAs in colonic
biopsies of IBDs patients in the next publications.
best regards.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02587-1 (2022)

Title: ANTIBIOTIC USE IN GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY PATIENTS AT A
VIETNAMESE NATIONAL HOSPITAL
Version: 1 Date: 11 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for inviting me to review the manuscript.
The manuscript is well written and provides interesting findings on the use of antibiotics in
gastro-intestinal surgery in Vietnam.
1- It may be more appropriate to include antibiotic prophylaxis as one of the measures to decrease
surgical site infections (SSI) before specifying the importance of appropriate use of prophylactic
antibiotics in clean and clean-contaminated surgery (page 3, paragraph 4).
2- The SSI’s definition is confusing. For example, it’s not clear if the positive or lack of culture
results should be associated or not to the presence of clinical sign (s) to diagnose SSI.
3- The authors stated that 14 SSI were bacterial and 25 non-bacterial. How was the diagnosis
made if no culture and/or antibiogram was done?
4- On page 5, first paragraph, the authors state “Our survey results showed that dosages of
antibiotics used differed from the recommended dosage” Please indicate the percentage of
antibiotics dosage that differed from the recommended dosage.
5- Although the authors did not find any association between the overall appropriateness of
antibiotic prophylaxis and treatment and SSI, it would be probably interesting to also evaluate the
relationship between every element of appropriateness and SSI (prophylactic antibiotic timing,
type and dosage and antibiotic treatment type, dosage, and duration) to ensure that no association
exist.
6- Page 6, second paragraph: To specify the type/parameter of appropriateness you are
discussing.
7- Page 4, line 101-103. There is a repetition of the antibiotic appropriateness definition/
evaluation.
8- Please write “materials” instead of “materitals”: page 3, “Materials and Methods”.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02587-1 (2022)

Title: ANTIBIOTIC USE IN GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY PATIENTS AT A
VIETNAMESE NATIONAL HOSPITAL
Version: 3 Date: 18 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
I am satisfied with the author’s responses to my questions/issues raised in my initial review. The
revised manuscript is easier to follow based on feedback from the reviewers.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02524-2 (2022)

Title: Risk factors for refractory enterocutaneous fistula following button jejunostomy removal
and its treatment using a novel extraperitoneal approach in patients with oesophageal cancer:
A retrospective cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 01 Sep 2022
Reviewer:  Shen Yang
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting study investigating the risk factors for refractory enterocutaneous fistula
following button jejunostomy removal and reported its treatment using a novel extraperitoneal
approach in patients with esophageal cancer. They concluded that duration>12 months for button
jejunostomy removal and fistula<15.0 mm are the independent risk factors for REF after button
jejunostomy removal. EPA for REF closure is a novel, simple, and useful surgical option for
patients with REF after esophagectomy. The manuscript was well written and its conclusion
could guide clinical operation.
However, there are some major concerns:
1. All patients received button jejunostomy in esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between
March 2013 and October 2021? Select indications for button jejunostomy in esophagectomy for
esophageal cancer?
2. The sample size of single center in this study is too small, and the reliability of statistical
analysis results is poor. Therefore, a large sample size of multi-center is needed for verification.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02524-2 (2022)

Title: Risk factors for refractory enterocutaneous fistula following button jejunostomy removal
and its treatment using a novel extraperitoneal approach in patients with oesophageal cancer:
A retrospective cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 13 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
This paper discusses the risk factors for refractory enterocutaneous fistula (REF) after button
jejunostomy removal in patients with esophageal cancer. The main contribution of the paper is
reported the surgical outcomes of the novel extraperitoneal approach (EPA) for REF closure."
I recommend that this paper be accepted after minor revision.
Minor comments:
1. The procedure of EPA was described, a spindle-shaped incision of approximately 5 cm around
the fistula was created, which is such a large excision area. Could you explain for the choice of
distance of circumferential resection margin in the discussion section?
2. In the measurement of fistula length, the author did not describe whether the feeding tube was
removed. The compression of the surrounding skin and subcutaneous tissue by the feeding tube
may affect the accuracy of the length measurement.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02524-2 (2022)

Title: Risk factors for refractory enterocutaneous fistula following button jejunostomy removal
and its treatment using a novel extraperitoneal approach in patients with oesophageal cancer:
A retrospective cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 18 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for my opportunity to review this manuscript “Risk factors for refractory
enterocutaneous fistula following button jejunostomy removal and its treatment using a novel
extraperitoneal approach in patients with esophageal cancer: A retrospective cohort study”.
The authors have done a retrospective cohort study including 47 patients who underwent button
jejunostomy removal for esophageal cancer. Refractory enterocutaneous fistula (REF) occurred
in 15 patients. The fistulas were closed with a novel extraperitoneal approach (EPA).
REF was defined as a condition in which spontaneous closure of the fistula was not achieved.
However, a time for when the fistula should be healed has not been specified. Most fistulas after
tube placement will heal spontaneously given some time. It is therefore important to be patient,
even though patients and relatives often can be anxious to have the fistula repaired as soon as
possible. Up to 95 % of fistulas that heal without intervention will do so within four to five
weeks. After this period of time, it may therefore be reasonable to say a fistula is refractory.
I believe that the novel extraperitoneal approach (EPA) is a good method for REF closure.
However, 31,9% REF is a high number, and more effort should be put into preventing REF.
The results of the study should perhaps lead to the conclusion that button jejunostomy should be
avoided in some patients. I would like to see some comments about it in the discussion section.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02581-7 (2022)

Title: Effect of posture on anorectal manometric measurements in female patients with fecal
incontinence and rectoanal intussusception
Version: 3 Date: 04 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Yoav Mazor
Reviewer's report:
I read with interest the authors' manuscript "Effect of posture on anorectal manometric
measurements in female patients with fecal incontinence and rectoanal intussusception". The
study is clearly and succinctly presented, including methods, results and discussion. I think this
data should be published.
Major comments:
1- Methodology: I am worried that methodology used for anorectal manometry is not accurate
enough. If I understand correctly the authors use a water perfused single port manometry system?
This system is not widely used  or published in the last decade. Results are off-range for
accepted normals, including high anal canal length (for females) and high anal squeeze pressures
(considering older female FI patients). Furthermore, establishing values in the upright position
with such a single port system might be very difficult.
Can the authors elaborate on this? Any references for the use of the system? Any normal values?
2- Clinical data: RAI is commonly associated with defecatory dysfunction. Can the authors
provide any information about coexistence of constipation, defecatory symptoms, stool form
and/or frequency and the such?
Minor comments:
1- Introduction: routine DPG is not recommended in the workup of FI, unless in selected tertiary
specialist centers. Please provide appropriate  references for this or modify statement.
2- Methods and discussion: balloon inflation in the rectum does not measure rectal capacity, but
rather rectal sensation (or more accurately perception, as the authors later state).
3- Results: IBS prevalence seems very low. How was this measured? Using Rome criteria?
Please provide more information
4- Discussion: although anal canal length was  statistically shorter in the upright position, I'm
not sure the difference is clinically significant.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02581-7 (2022)

Title: Effect of posture on anorectal manometric measurements in female patients with fecal
incontinence and rectoanal intussusception
Version: 6 Date: 20 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Yoav Mazor
Reviewer's report:
I thank the authors for answering my comments. I do still have some queries regarding the major
comments, as well as some minor points:
Major comments:
1- Regarding IBS diagnosis: No citation is given for which rome version was used. The author
state a very small (3/80) patients answering Rome criteria. Can the authors explain this? How
many patients were diagnosed with chronic constipation of IBS-C according to Rome?
2- Citation for use of anorectal pressure probe is a non-validation study. Please provide
appropriate quotation or state accordingly
3- 'in house' norms are given without any reference. Was this based on healthy volunteers? other
publications? Please state if any or none.
4- Was informed consent written or verbal? Was it required by ethics?
Also:
Was full data for CSS and FISI available for all patients?
Although I agree with reviewer 1 regarding putting the main results into the manuscript body
of text, I do feel the authors have a bit over-shooted this. Currently information in the text is
repeated in the tables. I would recommend leaving only main results in the text and referring
for other info to the tables (page 5).
Typos:
Anal length should be 'shorter' not 'smaller' through-out
FIgure 1 has 'maximal urethral closure pressure' in it. Is this a typo?
Page 4 'not to activate an accidental the external anal sphincter reflex' to correct
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02506-4 (2022)

Title: Change Lifestyle Modification Plan/Transtheoretical Model in Non-alcoholic Simple
Fatty Liver Disease: A pilot randomized study
Version: 1 Date: 14 May 2022
Reviewer:  Norberto C. Chavez-tapia
Reviewer's report:
We reviewed the submitted manuscript and found it suitable for publication with some
observations, we suggest:
- Specify the criteria used for the diagnosis of diabetes and intolerance impaired fasting glucose/
impaired glucose tolerance
- Define the operational definition of High blood pressure in table 1
- Specify in the footer of table 1 what the number 1,2 and 3 mean in the imaging diagnosis basis
section
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02506-4 (2022)

Title: Change Lifestyle Modification Plan/Transtheoretical Model in Non-alcoholic Simple
Fatty Liver Disease: A pilot randomized study
Version: 1 Date: 08 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
I congratulate the authors for the topic studied. We know that fatty liver disease has become a
global public health problem and the gold standard treatment is still lifestyle changes. However,
adherence to the therapy necessary to resolve simple steatosis still shows low adherence by the
population, where the understanding of behavior patterns and methods of approach to change
this behavior are very necessary.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02506-4 (2022)

Title: Change Lifestyle Modification Plan/Transtheoretical Model in Non-alcoholic Simple
Fatty Liver Disease: A pilot randomized study
Version: 1 Date: 09 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Lee-lee Lai
Reviewer's report:
6th June 2022
Dr Stefano Bellentani
Editorial Board Member
BMC Gastroenterology
Dear Dr Bellentani
Dear Authors
Manuscript Submission ID  4b08d728-c836-49db-a1d1-857d3a36009f
Change Lifestyle Modification Plan/Transtheoretical Model in Non-alcoholic Simple Fatty
Liver Disease: A pilot randomized study
Reviewer comments to authors:
# 1. Page 5, line 100 (inclusion) 105 (exclusion)
The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) Aged between 18 and 60; (2) Patients diagnosed
with the simple fatty liver disease according to ultrasound imaging; (3) Basic ability in reading,
writing and understanding; (4) Liver function was normal or basically normal, that is, alanine
aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (11), #-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) did
not exceed the normal range of 10u/L. The exclusion criteria were: (1) Women during pregnancy
or breastfeeding; (2) Patients with anxiety, depression and mental illness history; (3) Patients
with motor dysfunction; (4) Patients who were taking liver-protecting drugs and lipid-lowering
drugs.
How about the diabetes patients? Are they will be included or excluded in this study? As we
know, majority of the diabetes patients have NAFLD due to uncontrolled sugar levels.
# 2. Page 7 line 131
The control group received routine health guidance and follow-up intervention. May I know
what is the routine health guidance? Can elaborate more on this?
# 3. Page 8 line 152
Ten intervention strategies can be implemented corresponding to these 5 stages. May I know
what are the ten intervention strategies? Can elaborate more on this?
# 4. Page 8, line 158
A behavioural change assessment questionnaire was used for evaluation.
How do you distribute the questionnaire? Do the participants have to answer the questionnaire
face to face or online? How do you ensure the participants answer the questionnaire honestly?
# 5. Page 8, line 167
For patients with good behavioural changes, encouragement and affirmation were given, and
they proceeded to the next stage in order.
How do you grade the participants who have good, moderate and bad behavioural changes?
# 6. Page 9, line 185
The patients were advised to quit smoking and limit alcohol, and maintain a good life schedule
and mood.
How do you ensure participants will quit smoking, limit alcohol intake and maintain a good life
schedule and mood?
# 7. Page 11, line 222
The patient had a light diet the day before and fasted for more than 8 hours before the venous
blood was drawn. How about the liver ultrasound? Is the liver ultrasound done the same day
with venous blood taking?
If the blood taking is on the same day as the liver ultrasound is better. You can compare the
blood results with ultrasound findings, more accurate.
# 8. Page 16, line 344
This study has some limitations.
Your study limitation also needs to include Fibroscan® and liver biopsy (histopathology) results
to evaluate the NAFLD progress.
Lee-Lee Lai
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02506-4 (2022)

Title: Change Lifestyle Modification Plan/Transtheoretical Model in Non-alcoholic Simple
Fatty Liver Disease: A pilot randomized study
Version: 2 Date: 22 Aug 2022
Reviewer:  Norberto C. Chavez-tapia
Reviewer's report:
The questions were addressed in proper manner.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02518-0 (2022)

Title: Global, regional, and national burden of cirrhosis and other chronic liver diseases due to
alcohol use, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019
Version: 2 Date: 17 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Title
1. Please change the title as follows: Global, regional, and national burden of cirrhosis and other
chronic liver diseases due to alcohol use, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden
of Disease Study 2019
Have you ever seen the following report?
“Cirrhosis and other chronic liver diseases due to alcohol use — Level
4 cause” (link: https://www.healthdata.org/results/gbd_summaries/2019/cirrhosis-and-other-
chronic-liver-diseases-due-to-alcohol-use-level-4-cause)
2. Please clarify the difference between your study and that report and cite it in your manuscript.
Abstract
1. Please check the English of the text throughout your manuscript; for example, in the abstract,
“No study have …” needs to be revised as “No study has …”, or “incidence rate present …”
as “incidence rate presented …”, etc.
2. Please mention the database you used for your study in the methods.
3. Please mention numbers for your data in the results.
Discussion
1. For this manuscript to be of use and interest to our readers, the discussion needs to be
strengthened. In particular, the discussion should focus on the data interpretation more. Please
ensure that you address the following points in the discussion: What kind of contribution does
this manuscript make to the literature beyond methodological advancements and refinements?
Can you provide explanations for your key findings? How might the findings of this paper
translate to potential improvements in evidence-based policy? And what is the public health
significance of this work?
Tables
1. Please add “alcohol-induced cirrhosis and other chronic liver diseases” to the table legends; for
example, “Table 1. Age-standardized incidence rate (ASIR) and its temporal trends for alcohol-
induced cirrhosis and other chronic liver diseases in 1990 and 2019.”
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02518-0 (2022)

Title: Global, regional, and national burden of cirrhosis and other chronic liver diseases due to
alcohol use, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019
Version: 2 Date: 02 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors have used GBD data  to look at alcohol as an important etiology of cirrhosis
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02518-0 (2022)

Title: Global, regional, and national burden of cirrhosis and other chronic liver diseases due to
alcohol use, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019
Version: 2 Date: 30 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript needs a thorough copy-editing of English.  Several parts may be misunderstood
based on language.
1) The biggest problem of the study is that is assumes linear trends.  However, in many countries,
such as Lithuania, which they highlight, the trends are not linear.
There alcoholic LC rates increased starkly until 2007 and then dropped by about 40%.  The
linear estimation used is problematic for such developments.  This must be acknowledged as
the major point in the limitations.
2) The uncertainty intervals for the main statistics like yearly change are severely
underestimated, as they disregard the uncertainty of the underlying GBD estimates.  This
limitation needs to be acknowledged.
3) At several points in the text, the authors argue with Liver cancer.  However, this is NOT part
of the the category they examine!
4) There are quite a lot of inconsistencies in the manuscript.  I just list two:
"Finally, we only revealed the death rate and the number of DALYs, as the incidence and
prevalence of alcohol-related cirrhosis and other chronic liver diseases were not revealed in
GBD 2019."
This sentence in the limitation section makes no sense.  It is factually incorrect, as GBD gives
incidence and prevalence.  Moreover, in their Table 1, they show incidence.
"In the past 30 years, the age-standardized rate of mortality and number of DALYs have
declined, partly because some countries, especially those in high-SDI regions, have adopted
preventive measures, such as pricing policies, in the past few decades [6]. However, the global
age-standardized incidence of these diseases is increasing. "
First, the overall GDB results are not that much impacted by trends in HIC.  The global trends are
way more impacted by trends in China and India....  Second, pricing policies have been sparely
used in HIC according the WHO.  Third, how could - assuming there had been pricing policies
- pricing policies decrease mortality and DALYs when incidence had been increasing.
In sum, this text needs a thorough revision.  Inconsistencies should be removed and the English
needs improvement.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02518-0 (2022)

Title: Global, regional, and national burden of cirrhosis and other chronic liver diseases due to
alcohol use, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019
Version: 5 Date: 01 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
Authors has responded to all comments and questions and the paper is now acceptable for
publication
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02518-0 (2022)

Title: Global, regional, and national burden of cirrhosis and other chronic liver diseases due to
alcohol use, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019
Version: 5 Date: 02 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your efforts to revise the manuscript.
The comment "3. Please mention numbers for your data in the results." related to Abstract.
Please revise it.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02585-3 (2022)

Title: Comprehensive Analysis of the Differences between Left- and Right- Side Colorectal
Cancer and Respective Prognostic Prediction
Version: 2 Date: 08 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Please explain the criteria of defining high risk and low risk colon cancer patients.
Please explain or hypothesize why M staging was part of L side colon cancer patients nomogram
but not for right side colon cancer patients.
The patients from your hospital had curative resection - were all these patients non metastatic?
If not, explain how you are able to explain external validity.
Rephrase line 49.
Elaborate line 78-80
Line 82- dont use etc in manuscript. rephrase.
Line 222- correct the spelling of analyzed
Line 351- incorrect, rephrase
Line 355- rephrase
Rephrase 356, 375, 377
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02585-3 (2022)

Title: Comprehensive Analysis of the Differences between Left- and Right- Side Colorectal
Cancer and Respective Prognostic Prediction
Version: 2 Date: 16 Aug 2022
Reviewer:  Naveen Baskaran
Reviewer's report:
I want to congratulate the authors on the original finding. I have no comments to add. The current
manuscript should be accepted as it is. Thank you for sending me an invite
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02555-9 (2022)

Title: Quantitative assessment of the microstructure of the mesorectum with different prognostic
statuses by intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighed magnetic resonance imaging
Version: 0 Date: 15 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
Recently, the assessment of the microstructure of the mesorectum using MRI was paid attention
to predict the prognosis of the patients with rectal cancer.  The author s examined the MRI-
detected circumferential margin and extramural vascular invasion precisely. As a result, these
factors may be associated with prognosis  in patients with rectal cancer.
These results were interesting  and useful for the clinicians.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02555-9 (2022)

Title: Quantitative assessment of the microstructure of the mesorectum with different prognostic
statuses by intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighed magnetic resonance imaging
Version: 0 Date: 12 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
The current study investigates the use of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) parameters
obtained from diffusion-weighted MR images for their potential to differentiate between rectal
tumor patients groups with different prognostic status.
The manuscript is well written and the study appears to be well done. A few minor points should,
however, be considered as described below.
1. There are a few spelling/grammar mistakes: in the abtract rectal should be rectum and recruited
should be added or acquired. In the background "feasibly assess" should maybe be "able to
assess"? In the caption of figure 4 mesoretum should be mesorectum. In results mederate should
be moderate.
2. "orthogonal axial" to describe the orientation of T2- and T1-weighted imaging stacks are not
well established nomenclature. Should it be oblique?
3. No need to report the slice thickness separately in table 1 as it is given as part of the voxel size.
4. "f is the fraction of diffusion linked to microcirculation" should be "f is the fraction of the
signal linked to microcirculation"
5. Just to be sure: did the first step in the ivim parameter estimation include b = 200 s/mm2 or not?
6. The authors might want to consider using median (iqr) for all data presented in tables 3 and
4 to improve comparability between groups.
7. The meaning of the p-values for the inter-observer measures should be written out.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02571-9 (2022)

Title: Evaluation of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio as potential
markers for ulcerative colitis: a retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 07 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear author(s), you have prepared the study very well. Congratulations....
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02571-9 (2022)

Title: Evaluation of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio as potential
markers for ulcerative colitis: a retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 18 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Feng et al reported two predictive biomarkers, i.e.  NLR and  PLR in the UC.  Frankly, it was
not written well, and with some problems.
1)  There was no novelty of this  research and the results neither showed no superiority as  CRP
and ESR which were the routine non-invasive markers.  MedCalc  software may be proper  for
your team.
2)  TOO many writing inadequacy in the  context and tables. Such as PLR and NLR in the
abstract without full name,  "Facal? calprotectin" in the tables.