JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03155-5 (2024)

Title: Safety and feasibility of minimally invasive gastrectomy following preoperative
chemotherapy for highly advanced gastric cancer
Version: 2 Date: 23 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the authors determined the safety and feasibility of minimally invasive gastrectomy
in patients who underwent preoperative chemotherapy for highly advanced gastric cancer,
and they revealed that minimally invasive gastrectomy following preoperative chemotherapy
was feasible and safe for the subjects. Furthermore, they highlighted robotic gastrectomy may
improve surgical safety, particularly in the case of total/proximal gastrectomy combined with
splenectomy. This is an important report that objectively supports the progress and further
development of robotic gastrectomy. However, there are some remarks as listed below.
1. In this manuscript, the authors only describe the merits of RG, but are there no demerits in RG?
2. P7, line11-13#The authors described that ’we utilized near-infrared fluorescence imaging with
indocyanine green for splenectomy using the Firefly of da Vinci Xi system (Intuitive Surgical
Inc, USA), which enabled us to confirm the blood perfusion of the pancreatic tail to avoid the
occurrence of a refractory pancreatic fistula caused by ischemia.’. Actually, were there any cases
they confirmed ischemia of the pancreatic tail, and, if so, what countermeasure would they plan
to take?
3. In the ‘Operative outcomes and postoperative complications’ section of the ‘Results’,
considering the results of the second paragraph, isn't Supplementary Table 2 more important
than Table 2? The reviewer recommends swapping Table 2 with Supplementary Table 2.
4. Survival rates (3-year, 5-year, OS, RFS) in Table 4 are unnecessary, because they overlap
with the results in Figure 1A and B. Also, the authors need to add number at risk to each survival
curve.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03158-2 (2024)

Title: Microscopic colitis found together with celiac disease in a female population is associated
with one episode of lymphocytic colitis
Version: 0 Date: 01 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the authors aimed  toinvestigate the association between Microscopic colitis (MC)
and celiac disease (CD).
Overall, they studied 158 women with MC. Participants completed a study questionnaire about
sociodemographic factors, lifestyle habits, and medical history; the Rome III questionnaire; and
the visual analog scale for irritable bowel syndrome (VAS-IBS). Patients were categorized into
collagenous colitis (CC, n=92) and lymphocytic colitis (LC, n=66) or MC with one episode of
the disease (n=70) and refractory MC (n=88). Differences between groups were calculated and
logistic regression was adjusted for smoking habits.
They found that MC and CD debuted simultaneously in half of the cases. Celiac disease was most
prevalent in LC (12.1% vs. 3.3%; p=0.05) and MC with one episode (12.9% vs. 2.3%; p=0.01).
Corticosteroid use was most often found in CC (37.0% vs. 21.2%; p=0.037) and refractory MC
(38.6% vs. 20.0%; p=0.015). When adjusted for smoking habits, CD  was associated with LC
(OR: 4.222; p=0.047) and tended to be inversely associated with refractory MC (OR: 0.210;
p=0.058). They concluded that CD is most common in patients with one episode of LC thus
leaving open the question of whether to consider LC in combination with CD as celiac disease
or two different entities.
The study is of interest, however important issues should be addressed.
-It is unclear whether the diagnosis of celiac disease was preexisting or was established only
after MC was diagnosed. The authors should more clearly expose the study design. The criteria
used for the diagnosis of both celiac disease and MC (collagenous and lymphocytic) should also
be well defined.
It is critical in this study to clearly report the temporal relationship between the diagnoses
of celiac disease and microscopic colitis because the authors concluded that it remains to be
determined whether LC should be classified as celiac disease. However, previous literature data
have indicated microscopic colitis as a possible complication of celiac disease, both in treated
and untreated celiac disease patients.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03158-2 (2024)

Title: Microscopic colitis found together with celiac disease in a female population is associated
with one episode of lymphocytic colitis
Version: 0 Date: 09 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
Here, the association between microscopic colitis (MC) and celiac disease (CD) was investigated
in collagenous colitis (n=92) and lymphocytic colitis (n=66) patients or MC with one episode
of the disease (n=70) and refractory MC (n=88).
MC and CD coexisted in half of the cases. Celiac disease was most prevalent in LC (12.1%
vs. 3.3%; p=0.05) and MC with one episode (12.9% vs. 2.3%; p=0.01). Anti-transglutaminase
antibodies were found in one patient with one episode of MC. Corticosteroid therapy was
most often found in CC (37.0% vs. 21.2%; p=0.037) and refractory MC (38.6% vs. 20.0%;
p=0.015). Past smokers were most prevalent in patient with one episode of MC (54.3 vs.
29.5%; p=0.007). Current smoking was the smoking habit with highest prevalence of IBS-like
symptoms. Interestingly, when adjusted for smoking habits, CD was significantly associated
with LC (OR: 4.222) and tended to be inversely associated with refractory MC
The authors concluded that CD is most common in patients with one episode of LC. Whether
LC in combination with CD should be classified as a CD entity or two different entities remains
to be further investigated.
The study investigate a clinically important topic. I have the following comments:
-a more detailed description of diagnostic criteria used for MC and CD diagnosis should be
described.
-regarding the risk of MC, a higher risk of MC development has been previously related to
suboptimal or low adherence to gluten-free diet. The authors should specific whether this
important issue has been investigated in their CD patients. In this regard, it has been reported
that celiac disease diagnosed through screening programs in at-risk adults is not associated with
worse adherence to the gluten-free diet and might protect from complications such as MC or
metabolic bone disease (Nutrients. 2018 Dec 7;10(12):1940. doi: 10.3390/nu10121940.)
-The association between CD and MC has been described as well as with refractory CD
and literature data should be recalled and compared with study results (Dig Dis Sci. 2022
Aug;67(8):3529-3542. doi: 10.1007/s10620-021-07232-7; Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009
Nov;7(11):1210-6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2009.07.011; J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2015 Apr;25
Suppl 1:S14-6.)
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03157-3 (2024)

Title: Relationship between observation time and detection rate of focal lesions in
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a single-center, retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 25 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Review comments
Authors aimed to study a relationship between observation time and overall focal lesion
detection rate in upper GI endoscopy. Previous multiple studies have investigated similar
relationship not with overall but with neoplastic lesion. I think the idea is interesting. I would
like to have some comments.
- Please clarify the reason why has surveillance endoscopy been excluded? They may have more
neoplastic lesions.
- Please clarify the reason why you decided 5min as a cut-off time.
- This is a retrospective observational study. How did you obtain informed consent from 13000
participants?
- In this study, gastric lesion included not “focal” lesions for example, atrophic gastritis or Barrett
esophagus. This may have confused and influenced the result. Please consider analyzing  the
result without these findings. And why slow endoscopists had a higher detection rate of atrophic
gastritis while fast ones had a high rate of intestinal metaplasia? This should be discussed.
- ‘The focal lesion detection rate was strongly correlated with the biopsy rate.’ I think this is
not a significant result because it is obvious that biopsy will be performed after detection of the
lesion. Or authors meant anything different from this result?
- Regarding Table 4, what was the proportion of expert in each fast and slow group? Please
explain why in table 4, expert resulted as a negative factor associated with detection of focal
lesions. And in the table slow group was a negative factor, why?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03157-3 (2024)

Title: Relationship between observation time and detection rate of focal lesions in
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a single-center, retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 20 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
To the authors.
Thanks for your good research achievement & submission.
In this manuscript, the authors demonstrated that relationship between observation time and
detection rate of focal lesions in EGD: a single-center, retrospective study. Although promising
data were provided, there are several issues that need to be addressed.
Major points
1. The method section states that endoscopists were categorized into fast and slow groups based
on the mean observation time for EGDs without a biopsy. However, in the discussion section,
it mentions that the impact of biopsy time on observation time cannot be eliminated. Please
provide clarification.
2. Regarding Table 1, individuals with a notably high biopsy rate, such as those represented
by number 22 in the fast group and number 13 in the slow group, exhibit a low likelihood of
detecting focal lesions. Can it be inferred that this indicates a substantial number of unnecessary
biopsies?
3. In reference to Table 2, isn't it concerning that the detection rate is low despite the presence
of numerous experts in the Fast group? According to previous reports, experts typically exhibit
a higher detection rate, don't they?
4. In relation to Table 3, concerning cancer, no significant differences were observed in any
organ. However, a higher prevalence of intestinal epithelial metaplasia was identified in the fast
group, which is a crucial finding in terms of gastric cancer risk. Therefore, this outcome does
not necessarily imply that the slow group is superior. Can it be asserted as favorable?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03157-3 (2024)

Title: Relationship between observation time and detection rate of focal lesions in
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a single-center, retrospective study
Version: 4 Date: 31 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for your good research achievement & submission.
In this manuscript, the authors demonstrated that relationship between observation time and
detection rate of focal lesions in EGD: a single-center, retrospective study.
There appears to be some debate regarding the superiority or inferiority of various diseases,
including benign conditions that may have minimal impact on prognosis. However, overall, I
believe there is generally no significant issue.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03159-1 (2024)

Title: Possible use of 2D shear wave liver elastography in new-onset ascites evaluation
Version: 1 Date: 23 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Ioan Sporea
Reviewer's report:
An engaging paper for use in practice. It is possible to draw some conclusions even though the
cohort is not very large. Table 4 needs to be corrected in a few places. In the discussions, avoid
mentioning the name of the US company.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03159-1 (2024)

Title: Possible use of 2D shear wave liver elastography in new-onset ascites evaluation
Version: 1 Date: 02 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The number of patients is too less for any conclusion. The
manuscript is also quite overtly long and needs substantial pruning.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The presence of free fluid is likely to make the accuracy of elastography suboptimal. There is
no gold std in the study to demonstrate the accuracy of elastography.
Ascites should have been documented as mild, moderate or severe, especially with regards to
the presence of perihepatic fluid. Given the authors write-up, a 20 mm cut off for perihepatic
fluid should have been documented.
The overall number of patients is quite less - 52. This is too less for an accurate evaluation.
The manuscript is overall too long (>4000 words) and needs to be significantly compressed.
Overall English needs to improve.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
NA
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03159-1 (2024)

Title: Possible use of 2D shear wave liver elastography in new-onset ascites evaluation
Version: 3 Date: 19 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have responded to most comments. Few minor issues
remain
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors need to prune the manuscript further. For example, table 1 is probably not needed
in an original article like this.
Given the small number of patients, the conclusion should read more to the effect of 'given these
findings, 2D shear wave liver elastography has potential in evaluating new-onset ascites. This
needs further validation in a larger prospective study.'
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03159-1 (2024)

Title: Possible use of 2D shear wave liver elastography in new-onset ascites evaluation
Version: 4 Date: 02 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Yes they have attempted. However the conclusion in the abstract
and in the final paragraph of the manuscript still needs to read better.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The abstract conclusion can be made more circumspect, given the low number of cases. '2D shear
wave elastography MAY POTENTIALLY be used to differentiate transudative from exudative
ascites, especially in patients with portal hypertension and peritoneal carcinomatosis.' instead of
CAN BE. This needs validation in larger prospective trials.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03130-0 (2024)

Title: Efficacy of endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device for small rectal
neuroendocrine tumor: study protocol of a multicenter open-label randomized control trial
(BANDIT trial)
Version: 1 Date: 29 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Kenjiro Shigita
Reviewer's report:
I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to review the research protocol submitted
to BMC Gastroenterology. After carefully examining the research protocol, I am pleased to
report that I find the following four points to be acceptable:
The study design appears to be well-suited to test the hypothesis. The research is described as a
prospective, open-label, multicenter, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial of two parallel
groups, and it seems to have been adequately validated.
The authors have provided sufficient details that enable the replication of the work or comparison
with related analyses. Notably, the methodology ensures that differences in physician skills
do not affect the comparison of treatment methods, and random assignment was designed to
minimize bias by randomizing both by facility and physician proficiency factor.
The planned statistical analysis is appropriate, and the sample size appears to be adequately
determined for the study.
The quality of writing in the research protocol is acceptable.
Overall, the research protocol demonstrates a strong foundation for further examination and
contribution to the field of gastroenterology. I would recommend this paper for publication, with
minor revisions and clarifications as needed.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03130-0 (2024)

Title: Efficacy of endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device for small rectal
neuroendocrine tumor: study protocol of a multicenter open-label randomized control trial
(BANDIT trial)
Version: 1 Date: 18 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research question(s)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
STUDY DESIGN - Is the chosen study design appropriate for the research question and does
the methodology align well with the established recommendations for the chosen study design?
Yes - the design is appropriate and the methodology aligns well with the recommendations
METHODOLOGY - Does the document provide sufficient explanation of the methods such that
the planned analyses would appear to have the technical rigor needed to allow confidence in the
results being obtained?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - (For protocols with a statistical analysis plan) Are the statistical methods
appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistical approach described in the protocol
SUPPORTING RESULTS - (For reports that present preliminary results) Do the presented
results clearly relate to the study objective and support the need for the study?
No – there are minor issues
ETHICAL STATEMENTS AND APPROVALS - For protocols involving humans, animals or
both, has adherence to all relevant ethical guidelines and ethical treatment of subjects been
addressed in the description of the study design?
Yes - these items are addressed appropriately
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Are the study design and methodological approach
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This is a study protocol for a prospective randomized study. The
protocol has been well written, and scientifically sound.
Some areas have been written in the past tense, and will need to be revised.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
L320 Sample size calculation - Why is the R0 rate of EMR used in the calculation? Results of
ESMR-L is already available.
L338 - Analysis - "The main analysis was conducted using" - need to be written in past tense
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03130-0 (2024)

Title: Efficacy of endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device for small rectal
neuroendocrine tumor: study protocol of a multicenter open-label randomized control trial
(BANDIT trial)
Version: 2 Date: 08 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have satisfactorily answered the queries raised by all
reviewes, and made the suggested changes.
It is now suitable for publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03142-w (2024)

Title: Comparing the Effectiveness of Transdiagnostic Treatment with Acceptance and
Commitment Therapy on Emotional Disorders, Rumination, and Life Satisfaction in Patients
with Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A randomized clinical trial
Version: 1 Date: 27 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Roa Gamal Alamrawy
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I hope this email finds you well.
I am writing to you today to provide some feedback on your manuscript, titled “Comparing
the Effectiveness of Transdiagnostic Treatment with Acceptance and Commitment Therapy
on Emotional Disorders, Rumination, and Life Satisfaction in Patients with Irritable Bowel
Syndrome: A randomized clinical trial”. I have reviewed the manuscript carefully and am
impressed with the quality of your work. I believe that the manuscript has the potential to make
a significant contribution to the field, but I have a few points that need to be clarified:
• You need to include the designs of ACT sessions and their content as you did with the UP
group in a table.
• You need to re-write the results section to highlight the potential of UP alone, ACT alone, and
both in comparison to each other. This will make the article more informative.
• You mentioned online and physical sessions, could you elaborate more about this process?
How this was arranged to avoid bias?
• In the abstract section, elaborate more about the UP group to enhance the visibility of the article.
I understand that you may not agree with all my suggestions, and that is perfectly fine. However, I
encourage you to consider them carefully and to make any changes that you believe will improve
the manuscript.
Once you have made your revisions, please resubmit the manuscript to me for review. I will be
happy to provide additional feedback or answer any questions that you may have.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
Dr. Roa Gamal Alamarwy, MD
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03142-w (2024)

Title: Comparing the Effectiveness of Transdiagnostic Treatment with Acceptance and
Commitment Therapy on Emotional Disorders, Rumination, and Life Satisfaction in Patients
with Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A randomized clinical trial
Version: 1 Date: 29 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Accept
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03142-w (2024)

Title: Comparing the Effectiveness of Transdiagnostic Treatment with Acceptance and
Commitment Therapy on Emotional Disorders, Rumination, and Life Satisfaction in Patients
with Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A randomized clinical trial
Version: 2 Date: 11 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Roa Gamal Alamrawy
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
We appreciate the time and effort you have put into revising your manuscript. We have reviewed
the revised manuscript, and it satisfied my concerns as all have been addressed. We believe your
work suggestively contributes to the field and we are excited to find it published.
Regards,
Dr. Roa Gamal Alamrawy, MD
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03148-4 (2024)

Title: An inflammation-based model for identifying severe acute pancreatitis: A single-center
retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 27 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
In studies where indices such as PLR and NLR are used, the most basic step is the sensitive and
detailed application of exclusion criteria. Unfortunately, in this study, the exclusion criteria were
kept superficial and therefore there is a methodological error. (Many kind of viral, fungal and
bacterial infections, rheumatic diseases, inflammatory situations etc must be excluded). Thus
the paper should be rejected.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03148-4 (2024)

Title: An inflammation-based model for identifying severe acute pancreatitis: A single-center
retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 16 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
The Concept is alright and the study is relevant .
Acute pancreatitis being a dynamic process with the laboratory parameters changing daily , it
is important to specify the day from time zero when the labs are being assessed for calculation
of the various ratios. That does not find mention.  Being a retrospective study, it is possible that
the labs might have not been on the similar days from onset for all patients. Calculation of a risk
prediction model from this data ( which is the crucial part ) can hence be flawed.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03148-4 (2024)

Title: An inflammation-based model for identifying severe acute pancreatitis: A single-center
retrospective study
Version: 3 Date: 18 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
1) NLR is used to determine systemic inflammation, and the laboratory test for NLR is globally
available and favorable. Besides viral infections; infection, renal failure, diabetes mellitus,
valvular heart diseases, acute coronary syndromes, thyroid functional abnormalities, metabolic
syndrome, essential hypertension, and many inflammatory diseases may affect NLR.Thus
exclusion criteria should be written in a more detailed manner and related references that explain
the matter written above should be mentioned in the manuscript (Sample Reference: Tano#lu
A, Düzenli T. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio alone may not be a true indicator of the severity
of acute pancreatitis. Turk J Gastroenterol. 2019;30(10):937 )
2) C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio  (CAR) is a simple, rapid and easily calculated parameter
based on systemic inflammation. Relationship between NLR, CAR and other scores (for
example: Balthazar , Ranson etc) in predicting severity of acute pancreatitis is another
noteworthy issue. Thus this issue should be discussed in a detailed manner in the discussion
part and related references should be mentioned in the manuscript (Sample reference: Kiyak M,
Tanoglu A. Comparison of the Efficacy of Balthazar Score and C-Reactive Protein-Albumin
Ratio for Determination of Acute Pancreatitis Severity. Curr Health Sci J. 2022;48(1):81-87. )
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03152-8 (2024)

Title: Colorectal cancer pre-diagnostic symptoms are associated with anatomic cancer site
Version: 1 Date: 04 Nov 2023
Reviewer:  Amir Hakimhashemi
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the authors:
The authors attempt to link the colorectal cancer pre-diagnostic symptoms with cancer sites for a
sample of CRC-cancer diagnosed patients. My comments focus mostly on the statistical aspects.
Major comment:
- What does this paper add to the common knowledge in this area?
- For me some important issues are missing. From this study, we cannot conclude anything
about the association between observing pre-symptoms and later CRC-cancer diagnoses. I
could suggest a type of case-control study with people of different age groups, diagnosed and
undiagnosed, with and without symptoms, to investigate the association between symptoms and
CRC-cancer diagnose, especially for the early onset cases.
Minor comments:
1) There is a potential bias due to the way of patient’s recruitment. The recruiting process was
not based on a random selection. How can you guarantee that the patient sample resembles the
CRC-cancer patient population in the studied area?
2) Why the choice of age group: 20-74 years? Is this age group comprehensive for an
epidemiological study in the area of CRC-cancer?
3) You may need to apply an alpha-error-correction (p-value correction), due to multiple
statistical testing, and calculate the corrected 95% confidence intervals for the significance tests
for n parallel tests. The corrected alpha-error could be 0.05/n (Bonferroni correction).
4) Could you share the SAS-results of the logistic-regression models?
5) Could you share the first, second and third quantiles of the sample age? Does the sample age
resemble the population of CRC-cancer patients?
6) Are covariates correlated? Have you applied any correlation test? If there is a correlation,
how are you dealing with it?
7) Does the time elapsed between symptoms and diagnoses play a significant role in your model?
How could it change the results?
8) I wonder if you could test the combination of the symptoms.
9) Did you consider random effects in the regression models?
10) Table 1 caption is confusing. The first two rows do not show the numbers and percentages.
11) Line 183: The OR is not significant.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03152-8 (2024)

Title: Colorectal cancer pre-diagnostic symptoms are associated with anatomic cancer site
Version: 1 Date: 13 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Its a well performed study overall but not sure about its novelty
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Overall, this is a well performed study with hardly any flaws, except that I am not sure about
the novelty of the findings.
Generally, patients with symptoms present later than patients detected on screening. In this study
however, patients detected on screening are older in age. Any explanation for this?
'When triaging care, clinical providers and gastroenterologists should pay acute attention to
common pre-diagnostic red flag symptoms by anatomic site. Red flag symptoms have shown to
be a key area of focus that can inform best practices for early evaluation of CRC.' I am not sure
if this can be a conclusion, as the authors have not evaluated the prevalence of these symptoms
in the general population and compared the two to demonstrate that they are significantly more
common. For example, abdominal pain can be a pretty common symptom for many other benign
and malignant pathologies.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03152-8 (2024)

Title: Colorectal cancer pre-diagnostic symptoms are associated with anatomic cancer site
Version: 3 Date: 23 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Yes they have. Overall this is a well performed study. Whether this
is adding anything new to current literature is something I still am not sure of, but I leave that
to the editor to decide on. I have no further comments regarding the study or the manuscript,
which is of good quality in terms of the writing.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03143-9 (2024)

Title: Risk factors for gastroesophageal reflux disease: a population-based study
Version: 0 Date: 08 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
Table 2 of your study's findings indicates that consuming more dairy and high fiber is linked
to a lower incidence of GERD. However, there are instances where this finding is presented
in opposition to the results, as in Line 2 of paragraph 5 of the discussion, and line 6 abstract's
results section. These passages need to be updated.
According to the findings stated in the tables, there is a significant association between sleep
duration and GERD, but this finding has not been considered in the article.
Background
Line 3 should be "common symptoms of reflux" rather than "common causes."
Measurements
Correction needed for paragraph 1 of line 4 (stomach to the esophagus in the esophagus).
Ethics clearance and participation consent
Eliminate the redundant text, "All procedures were conducted in accordance with applicable
rules and regulations."
Table
Instead of drinking, write "drinking alcohol" in the table.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03143-9 (2024)

Title: Risk factors for gastroesophageal reflux disease: a population-based study
Version: 0 Date: 12 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Ehsaneh Taheri
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors
Thank you for writing this article.
Major
Generally this article has no novelty. The main question is that what your work adds to previous
knowledge about the risk factor of GERD.
Minor
In title, what is the level of your study ? Global, national or sub-national? among what
population?
In introduction section, as mentioned above you couldn't describe the gap of knowledge and the
necessary of doing  this article
This article needs to be check by a native English speaker.
Best
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03120-2 (2024)

Title: Effect of Cognitive-Behavior Therapy for Children with Functional Abdominal Pain: A
Meta-Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 23 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Nilton Carlos MacHado
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript “Effect of Cognitive-Behavior Therapy for Children with Functional Abdominal
Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis” explores a fascinating topic that will inevitably
fill a gap regarding the application of Cognitive-Behavior Therapy in Chronic Abdominal
Pain. The study reinforces the application of non-pharmacological approaches in managing this
frequent disorder in a Pediatric Gastroenterology clinic. The study has good planning, execution,
and presentation of results and clear conclusions. Tables and Figures are well presented.
Please correct line 152 1244 by 244.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03120-2 (2024)

Title: Effect of Cognitive-Behavior Therapy for Children with Functional Abdominal Pain: A
Meta-Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 02 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your manuscript. Below you fill find my comments divided into sections:
Abstract: Please provide more details on the methodology of your study. In Results, it would
be helpful to elaborate on the reduction of FAP (reduction in prevalence? based on a follow-
up of a certain length?)
Background: It might be worth clearly defining FAP in accordance to Rome IV criteria at the
beginning. The second paragraph starts with To data, possibly meaning According to data.
Methods: It is important to note how FAP was defined in the included studies. Since the impact
of CBT on depression/anxiety symptoms is also included in the study, said symptoms/conditions
should be either addressed in the Background (and if so, the authors should explain why these
symptoms/disorders are included into a meta-analysis on the effect of CBT on FAP) or should
be omitted in their entirety.
A number of studies combined CBT with other interventions.
Results: In the subsection titled Effect of CBT on FAP it should be clearly defined what reduction
in FAP actually means and how does this differ from the impact of CBT on GI symptoms, whilst
in the subsection titled Effect of CBT on Pain intensity, the differences in used pain scales should
be addressed.
Discussion: I implore the authors to make changes based on previous suggestions.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03146-6 (2024)

Title: Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of elobixibat plus sodium picosulfate
with magnesium citrate and split-dose 2-L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid for bowel
preparation before outpatient colonoscopy: A study protocol for the multicentre, randomised,
controlled E-PLUS trial
Version: 1 Date: 14 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
The protocol is interesting, well designed and the results of the study potentially usefull.
I have only some concerns regarding the following issues:
-The introduction in extremely redundant. Several concepts have been repeated several times
and because of this quite boring for the readers
- One issue to be considered and that could affect the diffusion of the proposed new cleansing
protocol is the cost of elobixibat.
-Some clinical data regarding elobixibat should be provided
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03146-6 (2024)

Title: Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of elobixibat plus sodium picosulfate
with magnesium citrate and split-dose 2-L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid for bowel
preparation before outpatient colonoscopy: A study protocol for the multicentre, randomised,
controlled E-PLUS trial
Version: 1 Date: 27 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research question(s)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
STUDY DESIGN - Is the chosen study design appropriate for the research question and does
the methodology align well with the established recommendations for the chosen study design?
Yes - the design is appropriate and the methodology aligns well with the recommendations
METHODOLOGY - Does the document provide sufficient explanation of the methods such that
the planned analyses would appear to have the technical rigor needed to allow confidence in the
results being obtained?
Yes - the experiments and analyses are appropriate
STATISTICS - (For protocols with a statistical analysis plan) Are the statistical methods
appropriate?
Yes - the planned statistical methods are appropriate
SUPPORTING RESULTS - (For reports that present preliminary results) Do the presented
results clearly relate to the study objective and support the need for the study?
N/A - no results are presented
ETHICAL STATEMENTS AND APPROVALS - For protocols involving humans, animals or
both, has adherence to all relevant ethical guidelines and ethical treatment of subjects been
addressed in the description of the study design?
Yes - these items are addressed appropriately
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Are the study design and methodological approach
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I read with interest the study protocol. Please see my following
comments:
Comments:
1. Please give more details on how randomization is performed, computer generated? Block
sequencing, etc.?
2. What is the blood sample being collected for? Please specify the labs.
3. What mode of anesthesia will be used? Benzo/opioids, propofol or something else? (Aziz,
M., Weissman, S., Fatima, R., Khan, Z., Mohan, B. P., Mehta, T. I., Lee-Smith, W., Hassan,
A., Sciarra, M., Nawras, A., & Adler, D. G. (2020). Impact of propofol sedation versus opioid/
benzodiazepine sedation on colonoscopy outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Endoscopy international open, 8(6), E701–E707. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1135-8681)
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Please see above.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03146-6 (2024)

Title: Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of elobixibat plus sodium picosulfate
with magnesium citrate and split-dose 2-L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid for bowel
preparation before outpatient colonoscopy: A study protocol for the multicentre, randomised,
controlled E-PLUS trial
Version: 2 Date: 19 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
N/A - no experiments or analyses
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
N/A - there are no statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I have reviewed the responses from the authors. Substantive changes
have been made.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
No revisions required.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03146-6 (2024)

Title: Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of elobixibat plus sodium picosulfate
with magnesium citrate and split-dose 2-L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid for bowel
preparation before outpatient colonoscopy: A study protocol for the multicentre, randomised,
controlled E-PLUS trial
Version: 2 Date: 23 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
I am satisfied with the changes that reflects my suggestions and I consider  now the paper
adequante for publication in the present form.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03128-8 (2024)

Title: Transcriptional landscape of intestinal environment in DSS-induced ulcerative colitis
mouse model
Version: 2 Date: 03 Jun 2023
Reviewer:  Maziar Ganji
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript entitled “Transcriptional landscape of intestinal environment in DSS-induced
ulcerative colitis mouse model” examines the transcriptomic changes in an animal model of
Ulcerative Colitis. The following points need to be addressed:
- Grammatical edition is required.
- Although the term “Difference in Expressed Genes (DEGs)” can be applied, the “Differentially
Expressed Genes (DEGs)” seems to be more frequently used in the academic environment.
- The mRNA & microRNA sequencing processes performed on mice need to be clearly
described! Also, the sample type name and its preparation method for these molecular tests
should be noted!
- The abbreviations such as FDR, lncRNA, and miRNA should be fully described in their first
appearance in the body text.
- It would be great if the authors can explain how a 7-day treatment can result in transcriptomic
changes in the mice's body? Adding references for conducting this approach in groups with only
3 sample sizes is highly suggested.
- In the Results section, for the genes with significantly altered expression some parameters such
as p-value or fold changes should be mentioned! These would show how much such alterations
might be of importance compared to other less crucial ones.
- Another major issue is that the Discussion section is too short! These huge numbers of genes,
pathways, and novel achievements of this manuscript can be easily discussed in detail.
- As a suggestion for Figures 3 & 4, in addition to the genes shown, their critical pathways can
be demonstrated too in order to clearly define the involved dysregulated pathways and gene
networks.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03128-8 (2024)

Title: Transcriptional landscape of intestinal environment in DSS-induced ulcerative colitis
mouse model
Version: 2 Date: 19 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
My comments:
1- The manuscript contains minor grammatical and syntactical errors, please read the manuscript
carefully and edit any grammatical and typos.
2- The authors of this manuscript found several differentially expressed genes. Please confirm
some of these DEGs with qRT-PCR to confirm the results of the study.
3- The Discussion section of this manuscript is not complete and needs to be rewritten.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03128-8 (2024)

Title: Transcriptional landscape of intestinal environment in DSS-induced ulcerative colitis
mouse model
Version: 6 Date: 30 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Maziar Ganji
Reviewer's report:
All issues have been sufficiently addressed. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the grammar
of the manuscript could be more thoroughly revised.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03128-8 (2024)

Title: Transcriptional landscape of intestinal environment in DSS-induced ulcerative colitis
mouse model
Version: 8 Date: 11 Nov 2023
Reviewer:  Maziar Ganji
Reviewer's report:
All discussed points were addressed sufficiently. Congratulations to the authors for their great
work!
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03134-w (2024)

Title:  Effectiveness of bevacizumab in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a
systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 05 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript entitled " Effectiveness of bevacizumab in the treatment of advanced colorectal
cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis " is a fair review. However, the manuscript needs
some improvements.
In general, the manuscript is fairly written, however, several typographical errors can be found.
Examples (including but not limited to): “uncon-trolled” instead of uncontrolled (exclusion
criteria, (b)); “Based on the recommendations of the Cochrane collaboration, quantitative
synthesis of the indicators included in the study” instead of Based on the recommendations of
the Cochrane collaboration, quantitative synthesis of the indicators were included in the study
(Statistical Analysis). All text must be revised to exclude possible typos.
Some text could be converted into a table. Additionally, the manuscript will benefit if the
Authors include a Figure that summarizes the role of bevacizumab in the treatment of advanced
colorectal cancer.