JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0367-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Cap-assisted Hemoclip Application with Forward-viewing Endoscope for
Hemorrhage induced by Endoscopic Sphincterotomy: A Prospective Case Series
Study
Version:1Date:24 July 2015
Reviewer: Jeremie M JACQUES
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
bleeding after ES is is a common complication with no recent therapeutic
advance outside the hemostatic powder.
The difficulty of the use of clips with lateral-viewing endoscope is real but new
clips without plastic sheath (Instinct clip, COOK Medical) are much easier to use.
Moreover, with the Resolution Clip (Boston Scientific), removing the plastic
sheath allows for ease of handling when lesions require torquing, retroflexion of
the scope or with duodenoscope.
In our experience with Instinct clips or with Boston clips without the plastic
sheath, it's very rare than the clip could not be adequately positionned.
Using a forward viewing endoscope with a transparent cap seems to be
interesting. Transparent caps are very useful useful for both diagnostic and
therapeutic procedures but the difficulty in post ES bleeding with forward viewing
endscopes is the difficulty of correctly be positioned in front of the bleeding. I am
not sure that the transparent cap considerably changes this kind of difficulty.
To conclude, results that are presented are very interested but it lacks a clear
explanation of the benefit of this technique in the discussion.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
No conflict of interest with this paper
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0367-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Cap-assisted Hemoclip Application with Forward-viewing Endoscope for
Hemorrhage induced by Endoscopic Sphincterotomy: A Prospective Case Series
Study
Version:2Date:23 September 2015
Reviewer: Jeremie M JACQUES
Reviewer's report:
Changes made by the authors increase the quality of the paper and explain the
usefulness of this technique.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0361-8 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Histological evaluation of duodenal biopsies from celiac patients: need for
different grading criteria during follow-up
Version:2Date:11 January 2015
Reviewer: Jonas Ludvigsson
Reviewer's report:
General comments
The aim of this paper is interesting. I have not come across it before. Good!
MAJOR COMPULSORY CHANGES
The language needs to be revised by a professional language reviewer.
abstract. the results section is unclear, please clarify
The authors do not present all data for the ”second method” but only data on
those 11 who retained the same Marsh-Oberhuber scale.
did you use mann-whitney test for multiple-comparison analyses - how?
Discussion. please comment more on potential weaknesses of your study.
MINOR ESSENTIAL
the authors speak of hallmark for celiac disease pathology. were an of the
hallmarks absolute requirements for a diagnosis of CD ? [e.g. villous atrophy]?
methods
It seems patients consecutively included in the study? between what
years/dates?
please describe the Milano centre where the study was carried out?is this a
tertiary centre (if so describe selection bias in the discussion)
please list information about the ethics approval (any serial number?)
the authors describe that the biopsy data were examined by 2 independent
reviewer and that the ”mean value ” was considered, what mean value??
what is ”short villi” - please define.
do you mean that you had a kappa value >80, or what was the kappa value?
please clarify. or do you mean you had a kappa value of 0.91!!?
please change the word paucisymptomatic. It is not part of the international
vocabulary, seems more Italian to me.
DISCRETIONARY
Minor Row 231: . ”Whn”
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no conflict of interest.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0361-8 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Histological evaluation of duodenal biopsies from coeliac patients: the need
for different grading criteria during follow-up
Version:4Date:3 August 2015
Reviewer: Douglas Curran-Everett
Reviewer's report:
General Comment
This paper compares 2 methods of evaluating duodenal histology. I have
reviewed this paper from the perspective of the statistical analyses.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Abstract (line 35), Results (for example, lines 143-144), SD. The preferred
format for reporting SD is 36 (SD 15) years. Because a SD is a single, positive
number, the +/- is superfluous.
2. Methods, line 128. What assumptions were verified by SPSS?
3. Results (line 152) and Figure 2, P < 0.05. Please report the actual P value
(rounded to 2 decimal places if it is greater than 0.01. This reports more
information with the same amount of ink.
4. Results, line 178, kappa. Please report the actual confidence interval for
kappa.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0362-7 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Video capsule endoscopy as the initial examination for overt obscure
gastrointestinal bleeding can efficiently identify patients who require
double-balloon enteroscopy
Version:2Date:19 June 2015
Reviewer: Masanao Nakamura
Reviewer's report:
Authors evaluated the usefulness of CE for overt OGIB. It is a very interesting
clinical situation and their results have some novelty. But they also have serious
issues for publication.
Major revisions
1. What is the definition of overt on-going OGIB? Data had many ongoing
bleeding patients. It appeared strange.
2.In general, the results of DBE are someties different from subsequent surgical
specimen. Why did authors regard DBE results as final diagnosis? once again,
please check the definition of final diagnosis.
3.Figures should include the sample of successful case with VCE and DBE.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
none
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0362-7 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Video capsule endoscopy as the initial examination for overt obscure
gastrointestinal bleeding can efficiently identify patients who require
double-balloon enteroscopy
Version:2Date:3 July 2015
Reviewer: Chris Mulder
Reviewer's report:
Video capsule endoscopy as the initial examination for overt obscure
gastrointestinal bleeding can efficiently identify patients who require
double-balloon enteroscopy.
Page 1: Overall: eleven authors for 89 patients is too much: can you specify their
role in this article? Title otherwise fine.
Page 6: 89 patients in 6 years -> 15 per year.
How to obtain informed consent in all patients, how many patients died already?
Page 7: Results, what about “anticoagulant” prescriptions during DBE and VCE?
The diagnostic yield is higher if you go on with this during VCE, what did you do?
Page 8: The perforation in Behcet should be considered as complication of VCE
(<30 days) and should be mentioned as such.
Page 10: What about complication of VCE in Behcet? Due to the small number
NPV of VCE was 100% Page 12: Overall the numbers are too small with too
many authors listed. We consider this as a pilot study. Much larger multicenter
studies are needed with over 400-500 patients to be able to give such, otherwise
interesting, advice for daily practice is probably good. You can do this easily in
Japan.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0373-4 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Hepatic Outcomes Among Adults Taking Duloxetine: a Retrospective
Cohort Study in a US Health Care Claims Database
Version:2Date:13 April 2015
Reviewer: John Dillon
Reviewer's report:
This is a well written paper using robust techniques in a standard fashion. the
results are clearly presented
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0373-4 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Hepatic Outcomes Among Adults Taking Duloxetine: a Retrospective
Cohort Study in a US Health Care Claims Database
Version:2Date:3 June 2015
Reviewer: James H Lewis
Reviewer's report:
The authors have undertaken a review of a large insurance database for
instances of hepatic injury due to duloxetine, and make a comparison to
venlafaxine and SSRIs . I have a number of questions:
1. The cases selected for further chart review were adjudicated by two
hepatologists, but the methods fail to state what causality assessment
methodology was utilized – was it RUCAM, expert opinion or a combination as is
done by the DILIN group?
2. Multiple concomitant medications were taken by these patients (table 4 and
supplemental table 1), and several are also potentially hepatotoxic (e.g
diclofenac, INH, phenytoin, valproate, chlorpromazine, etc) , how were these
excluded (relates to comment #1)?
3. With respect to the supplemental tables, there is such a thing as too much
information – it would be much more useful (and reader friendly) if the authors
would summarize the most important points to be derived from the supplemental
material – otherwise it is difficult to know if anyone should even spend the time to
review them.
4. The authors have nearly as many more exclusions as actual duloxetine
–associated liver injury patients! (table 1). It would have been very informative to
know if underlying liver disease was a risk factor for any of the DILI patients.
Certainly, duloxetine is used in patients with liver disease in real life. Can they
offer any statements about its use in this setting? Is there any labeled warning
that contraindicates its use? If so, their study might have been in a position to
possibly refute such a the warning.
5. What clinical signature emerged for the DILI from duloxetine, venlafaxine and
SSRIs ? And how did these biochemical and clinical findings compare to the
published reports and case series in the literature?
6. Is the study powered to be able to exclude a case of acute liver failure or
hepatic-related death ? If so, have they analyzed the published reports of severe
liver injury and can they provide an alternative explanation for the events?
7. Table 3 would benefit from having the percentages of patients included (rather
than just the raw numbers)
8. Why consider hepatic outcomes “irrespective” of alternative etiologies (on
page 8 line 268). This seems to just muddy the waters when the goal is to
describe DILI specific ally related to the drugs in question. Unless they are aware
of some factor that raises the risk of an hepatic event in patients using these
medications, that analysis seems irrelevant
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0366-3 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Chronic constipation in the elderly: a Primer for the Gastroenterologist
Version:2Date:17 June 2015
Reviewer: Rajesh Krishnamoorthi
Reviewer's report:
I commend the authors on their comprehensive review on chronic constipation in
elderly population. My additional comments are-
1. Authors should attempt to give references for all statements as much as
possible. Examples: Lines 148 and 227-232 do not have references.
2. I personally feel that authors should consider elaborating the section on
biofeedback training/pelvic floor retraining (Line 334)
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0363-6 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding due to Peptic Ulcer Disease is Not
Associated with Air Pollution: A Case-Crossover Study
Version:1Date:7 July 2015
Reviewer: Leif Percival P Andersen
Reviewer's report:
I have read the paper and find it very good and well written.
The purpose is clear and well defined and the methods are approipriate and well
described.
Data and tables are sound and clear.
Discussion and conclusion are well balanced and limitations of the work is clearly
stated.
Title and abstract cover the findings sufficiently.
I think the paper can be accepted as it is.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0363-6 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding due to Peptic Ulcer Disease is Not
Associated with Air Pollution: A Case-Crossover Study
Version:1Date:17 July 2015
Reviewer: Ilva Daugule
Reviewer's report:
The idea about the association between gastrointestinl bleeding and air pollution
is interesting and original, therefore also negative results (observed in the study)
could be of importance.
The design is original, although complicated for individuals not involved in
environmental research. The main conclusion – no association between air
pollution and upper GI bleeding – is clear. The study could be improved by
analysis of other factors that could influence gastrointestinal bleeding.
Major Compulsory Revisions
Multiple regression analysis could be performed to evaluate the impact of other
factors (age, comorbidities, season, possibly – H.pylori infection).
Minor Essential Revisions
• Conclusions – no need to repeat hypothesis.
• Add references in the following sentences:
Despite advances in management, the risk for mortality among patients with this
condition ranges from 2.2% upward to 14% .
The primary risk factors for PUD are non- steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
(NSAIDs) and Helicobacter pylori. However, a significant proportion of PUD is not
explained by these risk factors.
Discretionary Revisions
• The author could add some ideas in discussion part, how air pollution could
promote ulcer bleeding.
• The role of comorbidities, seasonality, age and complications could be more
analysed in respect to air pollution.
If possible, data about H.pylori infection could also be extrapolated from the
databases – this could help to differentiate H.pylori related ulcers and other
ulcers. May be there is an association between air pollution and only non-H.pylori
ulcers.
The level of air pollution differs in both cities – how this could affect differences in
discovery and replication cohort.
• The following sentence in discussion part is misleading – it seems that the
authors suggests that acute exposure actually triggers an UGIB. Try to change
the sentence.
Our discovery and replication cohorts did not demonstrate any statistically
significant associations suggesting that acute exposure triggers an UGIB
secondary to PUD.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0359-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Investigation of Potential Early Histologic Markers of Pediatric Inflammatory
Bowel Disease
Version:2Date:17 August 2014
Reviewer: Mark Riddle
Reviewer's report:
This restrospective case control study, which as designed has important
limitations that make generalization difficult. However, the study does identify a
current clinical practice conundrum and provides some evidence that additional
clinical investigation is needed to better distinguish early IBD from other causes.
An equaly important question is how such earlier diagnosis and appropriate
treatment might change the course of disease. In general, the manuscript is well
written. The following recommendations are made for consideration by the
authors:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. Methods - With respect to they way stained sections were evaluated for the
presence of TNF-alpha activity, further detailed information on the qualification of
"immunoreactivity". For others to repeat such a study based on histological
examination, very specific definitions are needed. Currently such detailed
methodology is lacking. Further objective description is needed.
2. Statistical Analysis - Authors need to justify the use of an idependent T-test for
comparison of continuous variables. It would appear that the Central Limit
Theorem would not apply given the small group sizes. Please justify the
appropriateness of this test or select a more appropriate non-parametric test.
Minor Essential Revisions
Discussion. p.11,ln 8 and line 12 - These are two statements that need to be
appropriately referenced.
Drop Figure 1, it is redundant with table 4
Discretionary revisions
Consider analyzing or providing description which evaluates whether clinical
features might correlate with crypt distortion or eosinophilia among those who
develop IBD in your data set. Such clinical features might be considered useful
for an eventual diagnostic algorithm which includes both histological and clinical
features.
Include discussion on the consideration of what proportion of individuals with
"high" criteria of crypt distortion and rectosigmoid eosinophilia might not go onto
develop IBD.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0359-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Investigation of Potential Early Histologic Markers of Pediatric Inflammatory
Bowel Disease
Version:2Date:28 February 2015
Reviewer: Holm H Uhlig
Reviewer's report:
The authors investigate twenty-two IBD patients who had an initial inconclusive
endoscopy but were later diagnosed as having IBD with a mean delay of about
two years. Slides were investigated by different parameters including staining for
tumor necrosis factor-alpha and matrix metalloproteinase-9.
The authors should show the selection process. How many patients were
diagnosed with IBD during the total study time January 2002 to December 2008.
This will give a indication how many Crohn#s disease/Ulcerative colitis or IBDu
patients were be missed during the first endoscopy.
The authors need to clarify the symptoms why these patients were investigated
in the first place (symptoms, CRP, ESR, leucocytes etc at the time of the first
endoscopy and compare to the markers and symptoms with the second
endoscopy.
The authors failed to detect a significant difference in expression of TNFa or
MMP9 between the IBD group and the comparison group. The authors need to
show that in a IBD diseases group these markers are increased in order to clarify
that this is no technical lack of sensitivity in the formalin fixed paraffin embedded
samples.
figure1 and table 4 show overlapping information. Figure 1 is redundant.
The authors show a eosinophilia of the eectosigmoid of patients who later
developed IBD. Was there any correlation to blood eosinophil counts?
Mean age of first endoscopy and mean time from first biopsy to diagnosis
(months) 23.2 >> the mean and the range should be provided
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
no competing interest
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0355-6 (2015)

Reviewer’s report  
 
Title:  Rare cause of severe anemia due to pyogenic granuloma in the jejunum  
 
Version:  0 Date:  04 Sep 2015    
 
Reviewer:  Dora  Lam-Himlin  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
This is a nice case report of a rare gastrointestinal lesion causing significant morbidity in a 
patient.  The combination of clinical, radiologic, and pathologic information and images ma kes it 
a very nice case report. Please check grammatical error in abstract.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify wh at is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects r equire further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declar ation of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript,  either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents  relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interes ts? 
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that  I have no competing interests . 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I u pload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/lice nses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0353-8 (2015)

Reviewer’s report  
 
Title: Trends in upper gastrointestinal diagnosis over four decades in Lusaka, Zambia: a  
retrospective analysis of endoscopic findings  
 
Version: 1 Date: 19 Aug 2015  
 
Reviewer: P. Marco Fisichella  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
 
 
Are the methods ap propriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the con clusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistic al review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing inte rests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose  financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the futur e? 
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the websi te along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under a n Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my name d report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0353-8 (2015)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Trends in upper gastrointestinal diagnosis over four decades in Lusaka, Zambia: a  
retrospective analysis of endoscopic findings  
 
Version: 1 Date: 19 Aug 2015  
 
Reviewer: Wai-Kit Lo  
 
Reviewer's report:  
Thank you for your responses to this reviewer's previous comments.  I have no additional 
comments at this time.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work includ e the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
Are you able to a ssess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks o r shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
6. Do you have any no n-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
I declare that I have no com peting interests  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be pos ted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under a n Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be inc luded in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0357-4 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Factors associated with growth disturbance at celiac disease diagnosis in
children: a retrospective cohort study
Version:1Date:5 July 2015
Reviewer: Bruno Bonaz
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting and wel done study. I am convinced by the results. I have
only minor comments.
- in the liver blood samples, it seems that the authors did not evaluate ASAT and
ALAT as well as gamma-GT
- page 9, line 197: it's possible that these adult patients had microscopic colitis
which is known to be associated to celiac disease and to induce secretory
diarrhea
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
No competing interest.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0357-4 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Factors associated with growth disturbance at celiac disease diagnosis in
children: a retrospective cohort study
Version:1Date:30 July 2015
Reviewer: Cristina Meazza
Reviewer's report:
In this study Nurminen et al. investigated the association of impaired growth with
celiac disease (CD) in children. They showed that growth failure in CD children is
associated with young age and severe presentation at diagnosis. Furthermore,
they demonstrated that CD children who present with sole poor growth are
clinically different from children with other symptoms. The study is interesting for
paediatricians who usually face with short statured children and the design is
commendable.
Specific comments:
• There are many studies about the association of CD and growth hormone
deficiency which sometimes is the cause of short stature in these children.
Therefore, when a catch-up growth is not shown after at least one year of gluten
free diet, an endocrinological evaluation is mandatory. The authors should
discuss this issue in the discussion.
• In table 1, patients are grouped according the presence or absence of growth
failure at diagnosis. Growth failure patients are 182, but in only 45 data about
height are available. How were the authors able to classify patients with growth
failure without having height data?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0349-4 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Synchronous mucosal Schwann-cell hamartomas in a young adult as a
possible mucosal Schwann-cell harmatomatosis: a case report
Version:4Date:11 March 2015
Reviewer: stephen M lagana
Reviewer's report:
1. Major issues
There are no huge issues with this paper. I would classify this as somewhat
interesting, but very rare. The issues I would address are as follows:
Although you state that this is the first case diagnosed <30yrs of age, it is well to
remember that these are asymptomatic and discovered generally at screening
colonoscopy and 30yr olds do not get screening colonoscopy. Therefore,
although it may be factually correct that this is the first, a statement mentioning
this consideration is warranted.
2. Minor essential revisions: Page 6 Line 18 has a typo. "hamartomas" not
"hamartoms"
3. Discretionary items:
It would be nice to know if there were any PTEN mutations, since Cowden's
Syndrome comes to mind. Can this be done? Perhaps there's an NGS platform
available that can be applied?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0356-5 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Patient-centered factors associated with hepatitis C treatment: a qualitative
study
Version:2Date:17 February 2015
Reviewer: Jens Martin Kittner
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting qualitative explorative study on patients´ wishes concerning
peg-INF containing HCV therapy.
Minor essential Revision
Please comment on the selection of patients interviewed, and on specific
characteristics of patients seeking care at VHA medical Centers.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competiong interests.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0356-5 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Patient-centered factors associated with hepatitis C treatment: a qualitative
study
Version:2Date:18 February 2015
Reviewer: Jay Kostman
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript addresses an important question regarding the factors
associated with treatment decisions for chronic hepatitis C from a patient
perspective. The authors used "semi-structured qualitative" interviews at four VA
Hospitals among three groups of patients to determine recurring themes of
participants descriptions of key decision making factors.
Major Compulsory revisions:
1. It is unclear to me from the methods and results what information is being
asked in the interviews. After the initial question that is posed that is listed on
page 4, what information was sought. The text notes that an array of topics
pertaiining to perceptions of CHC and its treatment were addressed, but it would
be helpful to know specifics. For instance, was the patient's knowledge about
HCV infection, disease progression, and available treatments assessed directly?
A patient's understanding of the disease process could clearly influence their
perceptions of the need for treatment.
2. The groups are small and were essentially selected based on their decisions
about treatment. It would be helpful to know if there were other clinical
charcteristics that were different between the groups. For instance, Did the
authors exclude people who had previously been treated for HCV? What about
co-infection with HIV or HBV? Active or past substance use, alcohol use? Were
patients in one of the groups more likely to have more advanced liver disease
(not just the perception of that)?
3. The authors correctly point out in the discussion that many of the factors
endorsed by patients may no longer be relevant in an Interferon-free era. They
point out that they are developing a tool to help patients that will still be useful.
Another way to address this in their interviews is to ask specifically if attitudes or
perceptions would be different if the regimen for treatment did not include
Interferon. Much of the negative feeling in the community about HCV treatment in
the past was related to Interferon.
Minor Essential revisions
1. Although I think that Figure 1 is a useful way to present the interactions
between the various factors reported by patients, the figure as it stands is difficult
to read and interpret.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0358-3 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence and predictors of patient no-shows to outpatient endoscopic
procedures scheduled with anesthesia
Version:2Date:27 April 2015
Reviewer: Pierre PE Ellul
Reviewer's report:
Minor revision –How and when are patients informed about the date and time of
appointment?
The authors state that “Patients received telephone reminders one week prior to
their scheduled appointment by the GI nursing staff and one day before the
procedure by operating room staff.” – was this done to all patients that were
recruited? What percentage were contacted by this 2-step approach? What was
the percentage of patients who were contacted and did not attend?
Major Compulsory Revisions - The authors mention that 12% were homeless.
How were these patients contacted? How did one ensure how these were
contacted.? Where they also contacted by the above 2 step approach?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0358-3 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence and predictors of patient no-shows to outpatient endoscopic
procedures scheduled with anesthesia
Version:2Date:29 May 2015
Reviewer: Manish Singla
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting study of predictors of no-shows to anesthesia-supported
endoscopy. The authors did a retrospective review of 511 patients, 27% of which
did not show to their endoscopy, and attempted to find factors that predicted
whether or not patients showed for their endoscopy.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. This is a difficult study to interpret in a vacuum, where it is not clear whether
these numbers are any different in anesthesia-supported cases vs
moderate-sedation supported cases at the authors' institutions. In fact, the
authors quote that previous studies have shown a 40% rate of no-shows for
colonoscopy, which suggests that maybe it is the anesthesia support which may
improve no-show rates. If possible, an age-race-insurance matched population of
those undergoing moderate sedation as a control would make this study much
much stronger.
2. The authors suggest that this population is representative of a significant
portion of patients who will access care via the ACA. This is a strange statement
that is not referenced, and should be elaborated on in the discussion if this is a
point the authors want to drive home.
3. The authors' definition of "heavy use" is troublesome, since endoscopists vary
in their consideration of too much medication to sedate and, in particular, may be
inclined to attempt moderate sedation for a colonoscopy while asking for
anesthesia support for an EGD.
4. While the procedures are broken up into routine vs symptom-driven, there is
no comment on whether these procedures were done for screening purposes
(the asymptomatic includes high risk screening). Are average risk screenings not
included in this block?
5. Are the patients being evaluated in a closed system? That is, are any of the
patients able to be seen elsewhere for their endoscopy after their initial GI
appointment? Was there a difference in the distance to be traveled for those that
were not homeless?
Discretionary Revisions
6. The methods should include any co-pays required by patients, and any
penalties patients suffered by missing their endoscopy appointment.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
No competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0358-3 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence and predictors of patient no-shows to outpatient endoscopic
procedures scheduled with anesthesia
Version:2Date:10 June 2015
Reviewer: Lev Lichtenstein
Reviewer's report:
The reviewed work has significant merit, and is well planned, well conducted and
clearly presented.
Major Compulsory Revisions
-- No significant remarks
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Lines 274 -275: In terms of patient characteristics, patients who missed their
appointment were more likely to be… black…
-- While the data (as presented at Tab 1) clearly show that the majority of the
African American patients included to the presented study fail to attend the
scheduled endoscopic procedure/s, the figures do not reach level of statistical
significance and should probably be interpreted as a trend and not as a clear and
statistically significant finding.
2. Difference/s in appointment keeping by the type of the procedure (“Routine” vs
“Advanced”) is mentioned (line 273) as a statistically significant one, with the
specific reference (line 267) to the results presented in Tab1.
-- I would suggest that Tab 1 would also include a p-value for the difference/s.
The same signal is reported based to the results of the multivariable modeling
(lines 292-293, Tab 2), this time clearly showing the significance value.
3. Line 286: (No-show rates were observed in) those with heavy prescription
opioids or benzodiazepines use…
-- While the trend is clear, technically, p-value of 0.053 (Tab 2) in at the edge of
the statistical significance.
Discretionary Revisions
-- No comments
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0358-3 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence and predictors of patient no-shows to outpatient endoscopic
procedures scheduled with anesthesia
Version:3Date:21 July 2015
Reviewer: Pierre PE Ellul
Reviewer's report:
My questions and comments where answered. Thus, it can be considered for
publication.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0358-3 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence and predictors of patient no-shows to outpatient endoscopic
procedures scheduled with anesthesia
Version:3Date:20 July 2015
Reviewer: Manish Singla
Reviewer's report:
They have discussed many of the concerns I had in my first review.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
None
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0358-3 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence and predictors of patient no-shows to outpatient endoscopic
procedures scheduled with anesthesia
Version:3Date:20 July 2015
Reviewer: Lev Lichtenstein
Reviewer's report:
No rmore revisions required
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests to declare
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0352-9 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses:
22-gauge aspiration versus 25-gauge biopsy needles
Version:1Date:23 April 2015
Reviewer: Michael Huw Chapman
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions:
1.The measured outcomes reported in tables 4 and 5 are unclear without
referring to the methods and so I suggest that the data is either presented in
another format or the legend includes a brief description of how the data is
presented so that it can be more easily interpreted.
2. These data are retrospective review of data but this is not immediately clear
reading the abstract and methods to make it clear it is not an RCT. Also, I
imagine from reading the methods that the 2 groups were separated over time
with the older group sampled using the 22G needle and the newer group with the
25g needle. These gorups therefore may have introduced other bias such as
improved operator techniques so this requires clarification
Minor discretionary reviews:
1. The authors report other similar data from alternative published studies with
reported sensitivities of 64% - 95% but report their own sensitivity as 60% and
32%. The published series may overestimate the sensitivity of FNA sampling for
diagnosis of pancreatic cancer but this observation should be discussed further.
Other comments
1. Generally well written
2. The numbers included are small and so of limited value compared to already
published series.
3. The 2 groups, although not randomised and likely involve different time
frames, do appear sufficiently similar to make a comparison
4. Grouping of definite and supsicious for malignancy is debatable in terms of
suitability for clinical confirmation of cancer although in my view is acceptable.
This issue may need clarification and discussion
5. Presenting the data on other parameters such as quantity of blood staining is
of some clinical interest to those in the area and is therefore suitable for inclusion
but probably adds little to the 'bottom line' of the final diagnosis of cancer v no
cancer.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have received a travel grant from the company who manufacture the
equipement assessed in this manuscript but this has no bearing on the question
assessed by the paper so should not be relevant.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0352-9 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses:
22-gauge aspiration versus 25-gauge biopsy needles
Version:1Date:25 June 2015
Reviewer: David N. Lewin
Reviewer's report:
No recommendations for change.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests