JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0266-6 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Efficacy of bevacizumab and chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of
metastatic colorectal cancer: broadening KRAS-focused clinical view
Version:2Date:26 December 2014
Reviewer: Yi Ba
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions
1. Previous evidence has shown that there is no association between KRAS
status and efficacy of bevacizumab in mCRC, but most of them were based on
subgroup analysis of phase III trials. The present manuscript is a large-scale
retrospective study that evaluated the prognostic and predictive value of KRAS
status in mCRC patients treated with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy which is
widely used in clinical practice.
2. In this paper, the investigators defined KRAS mutation only in matations on
exon 2, more evidence suggested RAS status including KRAS (both exon 2 and
non-exon 2) and NRAS may have stronger predictive and prognostic value in
treatment of mCRC using anti-EGFR therapy, but its value in treatment using
anti-VEGF therapy is still unknown.The results would be more valuable if RAS
status being used in the analysis.
3. The subsequent treatment after first-line therapy would have significant
influence on OS. The manuscript gave information of subsequent anti-EGFR
therapy but failed to give information on second-line or third-line intensity of
chemotherapy in both groups.
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/s12876-015-0266-6 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Efficacy of bevacizumab and chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of
metastatic colorectal cancer: broadening KRAS-focused clinical view
Version:3Date:28 February 2015
Reviewer: Sina Vatandoust
Reviewer's report:
All the comments made in the first review have been accepted by the authors
and the text has been amended accordingly.
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/s12876-015-0261-y (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Compound heterozygous Mutations elicit Congenital Lactase Deficiency in
a Japanese Infant
Version:2Date:17 December 2014
Reviewer: Richard J Grand
Reviewer's report:
MS: 8939417131516573
Research article
Compound heterozygous Mutations elicit Congenital Lactase Deficiency in a
Japanese Infant
Lena Diekmann, Katrin Pfeiffer and Hassan Y Naim
BMC Gastroenterology (Section: Intestinal disorders)
I have reviewed this MS and find it to be worthy of publication. It describes an
incredibly interesting case of congenital lactase deficiency, and drills down into
the genetic molecular mechanisms that account for its phenotype. The major new
findings are that these mutations are degraded in the ER, and despite having
active sites present the mutations lead to faulty intracellular processing. This is a
beautiful delineation of pathways of protein movement from the ER to the cell
surface, and the changes in that pathway that occur when transport out of the ER
is prevented. The experiments to prove the pathogenesis are impeccably
performed, the data solid, the writing clear, and the conclusions well supported
by the data. The authors are experienced in the cellular mechanisms of lactase
synthesis and processing and have produced a set of fascinating results. This
MS should be published.
Richard J. Grand, MD
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0261-y (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Compound heterozygous Mutations elicit Congenital Lactase Deficiency in
a Japanese Infant
Version:2Date:22 January 2015
Reviewer: Irma Järvelä
Reviewer's report:
I am pleased to read that functional studies have been performed
for mutations underlying CLD by Lena Diekmann, Katrin Pfeiffer and Hassan Y.
Naim.
The functional studies were performed using the published truncating
mutations from Japan. The cell biological methods used are sound.
The authors show that both mutations cannot exit from ER.
Another important finding was that there exists no interaction between
a wild type LPH monomer and a mutant LPH inside the cell. The authors
mention that the enzymatic activities of LPH did not change in co-transfected
experiments.
It would be useful to mention the retained activities here.
This result is in agreement with clinical data, ie. heterozygous carriers do not
express the disease.
- Major Compulsory Revisions
No.
- Minor Essential Revisions
The authors may have noticed that a new mutation, a duplication in exon 17 of
the LCT
(c.2232 2253dup22 ) (p.L752KfsX18) was identified in a homozygous form
published by Sala Coromina J, et al. Déficit congénito de lactasa: identificación
de una nueva mutación. An Pediatr (Barc) in 2014. This data has to be added to
the paper.
- Discretionary Revisions
No.
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/s12876-015-0258-6 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Ischemic acute pancreatitis with pancreatic pseudocyst in a patient with
abdominal aortic aneurysm and generalized atheromatosis - case report
Version:2Date:5 March 2014
Reviewer: Rakesh Kochhar
Reviewer's report:
1 The case report needs to be made concise; currently it reads like a case-file.
2 Its an interesting case but the authors should define the pancreatic collection
as per revised Atlanta classification
3 The authors should give a pathogenetic mechanism of pancreatitis in their
patient with reference to available literature which they have quoted.rightly.
4 The authors should specify in which category the association of acute
pancreatitis and aortic aneurysm falls possible/probable/conjectural.
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: 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/s12876-015-0258-6 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Ischemic acute pancreatitis with pancreatic pseudocyst in a patient with
abdominal aortic aneurysm and generalized atheromatosis - case report
Version:2Date:22 November 2014
Reviewer: bhushan bhole
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Plenty of spelling mistakes which needs correction
2. Wrong terminologies like no legs edema needs correction
3. Grammatical mistakes and mistakes in sentence formation needs correction
For example
a) Case presentation, paragraph 1 - ' the epigastric pain ...... irradiated to back'
b) Case presentation, paragraph 2 -clinical findings 'on' admission. no
terminology like sensitivity on palpation
c) Case presentation, paragraph 9 - no terminology like acute pancreatitis of
medium severity, it can be either mild or severe pancreatitis
Case presentation, paragraph 11 - delaying surgery for 2-3 months
d) aortobifemoral not aortobifemural
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: 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/s12876-015-0260-z (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Positive regulatory effects of perioperative probiotic treatment on
postoperative liver complications after colorectal liver metastases surgery: a
double-center and double-blind randomized clinical trial
Version:2Date:6 December 2014
Reviewer: Alexandre Darani
Reviewer's report:
Minors essential revisions:
1. Abstract background: note, postoperative intestinal infection is still common
2. Abstract aim: Zonulin needs a small introduction like: zonulin, a marker of
intestinal permeability,...
3. Line 56: to evaluate the impact on the liver...
4. Line 58-61: grammatical review
5. Line 62: ? Paralyzed ??
6. Line 100: infectious complication need to be avoided, but you cannot say that
antibiotics are not the best choice to treat them
7. Line 104: ... Bacteria may be expands?? Need grammatical correction
8. Line 126: our previous study...
9. Line 127: transmucosal permeation or permeability?
10. Line 332 to 334: this needs to be correlated with the amount of liver
resection. Level of AST/ALT will vary considerably between massive reaction vs
1 single small border metastasis. Are the 2 groups comparable on this?
11. Line 357-360: does the liver resection not increase by itself directly the
zonula in lever (or indirectly)? You use the term "liver barrier". What do you mean
exactly? You cannot assume that it is similar than the Intestinal TJ junction. This
needs more clarification
12. Line 359: We mean... Another verb would be more appropriate
13. Line 501: despite... Grammatical review
14. Line 582: that could be the first limitation
15: line 571: disable? Grammatical review
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/s12876-015-0264-8 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Use of Pethidine for Percutaneous Liver Biopsy - A Randomised,
placebo-controlled, double blind study - original article
Version:4Date:19 November 2014
Reviewer: Akira Imoto
Reviewer's report:
Major
1. What is the indication of liver biopsy in your institute? Author should describe it
in Methods.
2. Did you compare the collection quantity, the diagnostic ability, and final
diagnosis of specimens of liver biopsy between 2 groups? If you evaluate them,
please describe the details in Results and Discussion.
Minor
1. What is the MELD score? Please explain its details and abbreviation in
Methods.
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.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0264-8 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Use of Pethidine for Percutaneous Liver Biopsy - A Randomised,
placebo-controlled, double blind study - original article
Version:4Date:8 December 2014
Reviewer: Daiuske Masuda
Reviewer's report:
Comment: This article is a first report, which is a randomized placebo controlled,
double blind study about use of pethidine for percutaneous liver biopsy.
Percutaneous liver biopsy is a gold standard procedure for diagnosis of unknown
liver diseases. The article’s contents are that pethidine administration resulted in
significantly lower pain scores and requires less analgesia immediately after liver
biopsy in comparison to the placebo group, however there was significant
difference in the pain score and analgesia requirement one hour after procedure,
pain score at 24 hour after procedure and retrospective pain score, and that
pethidine use had not impacted on pain score and retrospective pain at 24 hours
after procedure. The results of article are interesting, moreover it is significant
that it is randomized and double blind study.
Major compulsory revisions1:
I think that pethidine use is effective during procedure of percutaneous from your
results, then I consider it is necessary. Indeed from your results, pethidine is not
long term effect, you need to discuss with each patients whether you use
pethidine or not. You do not need any medicine before percutaneous liver
biopsy? If you think another medicine is necessary before procedure except for
local anesthesia, what kind of medicine do you need?
Major compulsory revisions2:
You refer that pethidine is less effective for patients’ willing to undergo a
repeated procedure. I think this less effect is regrettable. But patients’ willing or
anxiety result from invasion of procedure naturally it is not thought to be related
to effect of some medicine. Indeed partially anxiety or willing to undergo a
repeated procedure must be relieved by some medicine, in fact it is difficult to
relief by only medicine. How do you think about?
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.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0263-9 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Identifying patients with chronic hepatitis B at high risk of type 2 diabetes
mellitus: a case-control study
Version:4Date:3 January 2015
Reviewer: Harkirat Singh
Reviewer's report:
Major Revisions.
1. Study Population and Data Collection- were these patients treatment naive for
Anti HBV drugs or not? Were any of the patients currently on treatment? Were
any non responders? Please clarify the treatment status of the included patients.
2. How was the diagnosis of alcoholic steatosis obtained? AS mentioned in the
text, steatosis was diagnosed on imaging - US or CT. How was it called alcoholic
vs non alcoholic? Based on amount of drinking? Please clarify. As there could be
a subset of people with non alcoholic steatosis, which would mean many parts in
the manuscript relating to alcoholic steatosis will need modification.
3. In results - "In addition, mean creatinine levels were higher in patients of the
case group than those from the control group, suggesting that diabetic CHB
patients may have early kidney impairment.". What was the range of normal cr? I
think its better to give percentages of people with elevated cr (~ckd) and then
analysing rather than mean cr. E.g. if range is like 0.6-1.0, then a mean of 0.6 vs
0.9 may seem significant but both 0.6 and 0.9 are in normal range so cannot say
one is worse than the other.
4. In discussion, please mention the biases of case control studies in a little more
detail and in the context of this study rather than just saying "This is a
case-control study, which is the most important limitation of our work. Thus, we
cannot establish a firm cause-effect relationship between risk factors identified,
their interactions and T2DM."
5. In Table 2, please mention the normal ranges for these labs.
Minor Revisions.
1. In the abstract, results - "three typical features of CHB" - please remove the
word "typical".
2. In the abstract, results - last line - "and" should come before "presence of
alcoholic steatosis" and not before GGT levels.
3. In the abstract, conclusions - "Our findings suggest that high viral load, long
duration of CHB, presence of cirrhosis, alcoholic steatosis and several other
factors may risk factors for T2DM development." This should read as follows "Our
findings suggest that high viral load, long duration of CHB, presence of cirrhosis,
alcoholic steatosis and several other factors may be potential risk factors for
development of T2DM in CHB patients"
4. In results, clinical and lab features -"The case group did not differ obviously in
the percentage of HCC from the control group". Please remove the word
obviously.
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/s12876-015-0263-9 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Identifying patients with chronic hepatitis B at high risk of type 2 diabetes
mellitus: a cross-sectional study with pair-matched controls
Version:8Date:31 January 2015
Reviewer: Saurabh Mukewar
Reviewer's report:
Authors have made the necessary changes to the manuscript. I have reviewed
these changes.
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.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0263-9 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Identifying patients with chronic hepatitis B at high risk of type 2 diabetes
mellitus: a cross-sectional study with pair-matched controls
Version:8Date:5 February 2015
Reviewer: Harkirat Singh
Reviewer's report:
In the discussion, authors still use the word "independent risk factors" for GGT
and Alcoholic steatosis in their respective paragraphs. They should change it to
independent associations.
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 declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0262-x (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:The clinical characteristics of patients with free perforation in Korean
Crohn's disease: results from the CONNECT study
Version:2Date:10 January 2015
Reviewer: david ong
Reviewer's report:
My conclusion is that it is a well written paper that should be accepted with minor
revisions.
The question posed is original as there is as yet a paucity of such data coming
out of Asia. The fact that it is retrospective is acceptable as it would be difficult to
accumulate such a large number of cases in a prospective manner seeing that
IBD is still relatively low in incidence compared to the west (even though it is
increasing rapidly)
The data is important and highlights the need for clinicians to think about IBD
before perforation occurs. Treatment for IBD may avoid such complications.
Data is sound and numbers are large enough in this setting.
Interpretation is fair and well supported by the data shown.
Methods are sound - the methodology is straightforward being a retropsective
study.
It is well written and quality of languange is high.
I would however recommend the following revisions:
Introduction 2nd paragraph:
should read:
Free perforation is relatively rare among the major complications of CD that
include stenoses, fistulae and perforations.
(can leave as it is but I think reads better this way...)
Results:
The sentence:
free perforation was the presenting sign that was associated with a diagnosis of
CD in 46 patients (52%) and free perforation developed after the diagnosis of CD
in 42 patients (48%).
Is there any way of rephrasing this? appears to give impression that 52% of ALL
patients with CD presented in this way......it becomes clear later on but I think the
authors should rephrase this to make it clearer.
Discussion:
Paragraph 5 - Reports from previous studies......
Can you ask the authors to clarify this paragraph? As it is a retrospective study, I
am not sure that it is accurate to make comments on the effect of drugs on the
free perforation...unless the authors are certain that they know what drugs the
patients were on at the time of perforation or thereabouts.
As we know patients with IBD usually have a stepwise approach to their drugs so
they might have been on a variety of drugs over the course of the disease and
hence the authors need to be aware of exactly what drug the patient was on at
the time of perforation to be able to make the comments that they have made....
They did try to address the above points in the second last paragraph but I feel if
that was the case, then they are in a sense contradicting themselves here....
I would suggest they remove the paragraph relating to " our findings did not
suggest that any drugs....."and just keep the comments on the anti TNFs.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0256-8 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:A retrospective analysis of human cystic echinococcosis cases in
Heilongjiang Province, in the northeast of China
Version:1Date:17 June 2014
Reviewer: Shyamapada Mandal
Reviewer's report:
Report on the paper entitled “A retrospective analysis of human cystic
echinococcosis cases in Heilongjiang Province, in the northeast of China” by
Zhang et al:
The paper is of great importance and with scientific data presentation. However
the following modifications are needed to make the paper scientific and this is
must for its acceptance:
1. Title: Replace the current title with “Human cystic echinococcosis in
Heilongjiang Province, China: A retrospective study”.
2. Abstract: OK
3. Background: Limit this section within 300 words and with 60% references from
years 2012-2014.
4. Methods: Include here the treatment with chemotherapeutic agents, if any,
along with surgery, and mention the follow up as well.
5. Results: Year wise presentation of data (of all parameters presented in the
paper) is must, since it is a retrospective study. Presentation with table and/or
figure is more scientific.
Mention here, about treatment with chemotherapeutic agents, if any, along with
surgery, and mention the follow up as well.
6. Table 1: Divide patients (cases) into Male, Female and Total. Table 2 and 3:
Start the word in the columns with upper case (first letter only).
7. Discussion: Inclusion of more recent references (80% from years 2012-2014)
is required to make the presentation more scientific and to explore its current
significance of the study.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0256-8 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:A retrospective analysis of human cystic echinococcosis cases in
Heilongjiang Province, in the northeast of China
Version:1Date:21 December 2014
Reviewer: Christine Budke
Reviewer's report:
This study reports information on cases of cystic echinococcosis (CE) from a
region of China that is not considered highly endemic. Please find my specific
comments below.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. In multiple locations throughout the manuscript, the authors make statements
regarding the accuracy of CT, ultrasound, and serological testing. However, the
authors need to clearly state that these diagnostic tests are being (presumably)
compared against the gold standard of histopathology.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. Background, last paragraph- Do the estimated 0.6-1.3 million cases of
echinococcosis include both cases of cystic echinococcosis and alveolar
echinococcosis? Also, to what time period(s) do these values as well as the
livestock values in the next sentence refer?
2. Methods, Study location and screening of human CE cases- Are the two study
hospitals where most CE cases would be diagnosed/treated in Heilongjiang
Province?
3. Methods, Data collection- Does “living residence” refer to urban versus rural?
If so, this should be clarified.
4. Results, Age, gender and occupation of human CE patients- What is the
definition of “illiterate children”?
5. Result, Location, size, and number of cysts- The majority of the text, in this
section, is repetitive of what is presented in table 3. Therefore, the authors can
delete much of the text and just refer to the table.
6. Results, Evaluation of diagnosis methods- It is not clear what the authors
mean by the statement, “For CE cases with cysts locating in lungs in this study,
three out of five cases and one out of three cases was compatible with the
results of histopathology after operation”. Please revise for clarity.
7. Results, Evaluation of diagnosis methods- The authors state that one of the
cases of CE of the spleen was “probably diagnosed as CE by CT”. What do the
authors mean by “probably diagnosed”?
8. Results, Evaluation of diagnosis methods- What serological test(s) was used
for the diagnosis of CE?
9. Please clarify if there were cases with cysts in more than one organ system.
This is alluded to in the discussion, but is not clear from table 3.
10. Table 2- What is the difference between “workers” and “employees”?
Discretionary Revisions:
1. Please consider shortening the discussion. It seems overly long in relation to
the scope of the paper.
2. Were the hepatic cysts staged using the WHO’s criteria? If available, this
would be interesting information.
3. A map and brief description of Heilongjiang Province would be helpful.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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/s12876-015-0256-8 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Human cystic echinococcosis in Heilongjiang Province, China: A
retrospective study
Version:2Date:9 January 2015
Reviewer: Christine Budke
Reviewer's report:
The paper requires substantial editing for language, preferably by a native
English speaker.
Please be careful about your wording when you talk about comparing the various
diagnostic testing procedures (CT, US, ELISA) with histopathology since you are
only describing the test outcomes for those patients with positive histopathology.
Are the authors confident that these patients were infected in Heilongjiang
Province rather than in a known endemic region of China? The authors may want
to discuss this point further.
A map of China indicating the location of Heilongjiang Province would be helpful
for readers not familiar with the geography of China.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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/s12876-015-0255-9 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatment of pancreatic stones
complicated with advanced stage autoimmune pancreatitis
Version:3Date:4 December 2014
Reviewer: Manu Tandan
Reviewer's report:
Attached,
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:
I declare that I have no competing interest
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0245-y (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Beyond Maastricht IV: Are standard empiric triple therapies for Helicobacter
pylori still useful in a South-European country?
Version:3Date:30 August 2014
Reviewer: Antonio Gasbarrini
Reviewer's report:
This paper does not add anything relevant news on the topic.
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 have no competing interests in relation to this paper
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0245-y (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Beyond Maastricht IV: Are standard empiric triple therapies for Helicobacter
pylori still useful in a South-European country?
Version:3Date:5 September 2014
Reviewer: COLM O'MORAIN
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting report showing that ppi amoxicillin and clarithromycin given
twice a day for two weeks and rescue treatment of ppi amoxicillin and
levofloxacin given twice a day for 10days were ineffective in treating H pylori
infection
The study was carefully done
Relatively small numbers However this is explained
Excellent result in getting culture on all samples submitted
I note that the culture and antibiotic sensitivities were not considered when
prescribing treatment
How long did it take to get antibiotic sensitivities back and should a
recommendation be made to hod treatment until this information is available
The dose of levofloxacin was 250mgs bd should they not use 500 mgs This
might explain the poor result obtained even in the sensitive strains
Is there any explanation for the female predominance
The side effects and I note one was considered severe are not described
The authors found that antibiotic sensitivity was the major reason for failure and
is the major point of the study
Previous infection was also associated with treatment failure which I suspect is
due to antibiotic exposure which is discussed in text
Smoking was also a variable associated with failure The authors were careful
regarding compliance but smoking could be a surrogate of poor compliance
Interesting result on the genotype which was not found to be significant on
multivariate analysis but maybe due to small numbers
Ce
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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/s12876-015-0245-y (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Beyond Maastricht IV: Are standard empiric triple therapies for Helicobacter
pylori still useful in a South-European country?
Version:3Date:25 September 2014
Reviewer: Enzo Ierardi
Reviewer's report:
The paper of Nuno Almeida et al “Beyond Maastricht IV: Are standard empiric
triple therapies for Helicobacter pylori still useful in a South-European country?”
is a report on the therapeutic success rates of 14-days standard triple therapy in
first-line and 10-day levofloxacin based triple therapy in second-line. Authors
found very disappointing eradication rates for both regimens, and correlated
these results with phenotypic (culture) and genotypic resistances (molecular
biology) and with demographical data by multivariate analysis. Main comments:
• “Group B patients received a median of one eradication 1 (range – 1 to 5)
before inclusion with the following drugs: amoxicillin – 100%; Clarithromycin –
92.2%; Nitroimidazoles – 29.4%”. In those receiving levofloxacin-based triple
therapy, it would be more useful to indicate the previously employed regimens,
not only the previously used drugs.
• “binary logistic regression” should be more appropriately replaced by “binomial
logistic regression”.
• Which mutations in the 23S rRNA gene have been detected for clarithromycin
resistance? It is important to report this detail, as different mutations may imply
different therapeutic outcomes (see De FrancescoV et al, J Med Microbiol, 2014;
De Francesco V et al, Ann Intern Med, 2006).
• Several linguistic mistakes are present
• The discussion is too long, therefore it may annoy the reader. Authors have
discussed some points of their study that are too obvious (such as the fact that
recurrent infections are an independent risk factor for therapy failure), so these
sections can be shortened. Moreover, the reason why clarithromycin resistance
is the main reason for triple therapy failure is poorly discussed (see Giorgio F et
al, World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol, 2013).
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
none declared
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0245-y (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Beyond Maastricht IV: Are standard empiric triple therapies for Helicobacter
pylori still useful in a South-European country?
Version:4Date:23 December 2014
Reviewer: COLM O'MORAIN
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your email, I am happy with the changes and can be published.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0245-y (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Beyond Maastricht IV: Are standard empiric triple therapies for Helicobacter
pylori still useful in a South-European country?
Version:4Date:17 December 2014
Reviewer: Enzo Ierardi
Reviewer's report:
none
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
none
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0241-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Assessment of esophageal involvement in systemic sclerosis and morphea
(localized scleroderma) by clinical, endoscopic, manometric and pH metric
features: A prospective comparative hospital based study
Version:5Date:9 September 2014
Reviewer: Manuele Furnari
Reviewer's report:
Although the work by Tarif and colleague is based on some bias that cannot be
modified (i.e lack of impedance, lack of swallow with viscous bolus, etc) the
authors managed properly all the concerns.
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:
none
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0243-0 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:The NFKB1 polymorphism (rs4648068) is associated with the cell
proliferation and motility in gastric cancer
Version:4Date:11 November 2014
Reviewer: Brian Poole
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript “The NFKB1polymorphism (rs4648068) is associated with the
cell proliferation and motility in gastric cancer” is is a potentially important finding.
The initial experiments, including the immunohistochemical staining and the
luciferase activity assays, were well done and showed a connection between the
polymorphism and NFkB expression. However, there are several aspects of the
manuscript that are unclear, and need to be resolved before publication.
Major compulsory revisions
1. Lines 210-222, the section on C/EBP#, are unclear. I am unsure from reading
them whether C/EBP# is binding to the NF-#B promoter and regulating it, or if
NF-#B is binding to the C/EBP# and regulating it. Some clarity or perhaps a
diagram would be useful here. I am having trouble believing that the presence of
a promoter can bind up enough C/EBP# to “regulate” protein activity on other
genes, which is what the authors seem to be saying. Alternately, they may be
saying that C/EBP# binds better to the GG version of the NFkB promoter and
enhances transcription of NFkB. This is a reasonable finding, but does not
explain the effects seen in figure 5, as explained below in point 2.
2. I am unsure what the recombinant plasmid contains. Is it just the promoter
region of NF-kappaB with the polymorphisms, or is it the entire gene, complete
with NF-kappa B coding sequence? This needs to be better specified. If it is just
the promoter region, how does this explain the effects seen, since endogenous
NF-kappa B would still be regulated by its own promoter?
Minor essential revisions
1. There are a few missing words and minor mistakes throughout the manuscript.
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 not competing interests
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0242-1 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Epidemiology of Appendicitis and Appendectomy for the Low-Income
Population in Taiwan, 2003-2011
Version:3Date:5 November 2014
Reviewer: Andee Zakaria
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
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:
i declare that i have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0242-1 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Epidemiology of Appendicitis and Appendectomy for the Low-Income
Population in Taiwan, 2003-2011
Version:3Date:16 November 2014
Reviewer: Minutolo Vincenzo
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Clarify the difference between appendicitis and acute appendicitis. Some data
refer to appendicitis and some other data refer to acute appendicitis. Surgery for
chronic appendicitis is very rare and the numbers given are way too high and
therefore an explanation is needed.
The authors state that during the 2003-2011 periods, 2,916 patients from the LIP
and 209,206 patients from the NP were diagnosed with appendicitis.... These 2
cohorts are very discrepant in size. Please justify with statistical means that the
results you are having are statistical significant despite the different size of the
cohorts studied.
Minor Essential Revisions
Please add the p value in the body of the text.
Line 248... 2 cohorts of LIP? Most likely a typo, please clarify.
Correct figure 5: change in Perforation rather than perforatation
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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/s12876-015-0244-z (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Does lower gastrointestinal endoscopy during pregnancy pose a risk for
mother and child? - a systematic review
Version:1Date:2 December 2014
Reviewer: Petra Anna Golovics
Reviewer's report:
The BMC Gastroenterology does not generally consider narrative review articles.
In recent guidelines (ASGE, Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Jul;76(1):18-24) LGE is
regarded of low risk during pregnancy, and it is concluded that if possible this
should be deferred to the second trimester.
The aim of this study was to assess whether lower gastrointestinal endoscopies
(LGEs) across all three trimesters of pregnancy affect pregnancy outcomes. The
authors screened 5514 references. 82 references were selected. The data from
this review in fact suggests that colonoscopy is of similar low risk in each
trimester when colonoscopy is strongly
indicated.
The impact of this evidence is low.
The only figure is a flowchart. There is only a sensitivity analysis in this review.
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/s12876-015-0244-z (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Does lower gastrointestinal endoscopy during pregnancy pose a risk for
mother and child? - a systematic review
Version:1Date:7 December 2014
Reviewer: Benjamin Misselwitz
Reviewer's report:
see attachment
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/s12876-015-0249-7 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Gastric epithelial dysplasia: characteristics and long-term follow-up results
after endoscopic resection according to morphological categorization
Version:2Date:20 December 2014
Reviewer: Giuseppe Ingravallo
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revision
Labels on endoscopic and histopathologic images should be revised to coincide
with figure legends and text.
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.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0235-0 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Validation of the Diffusion-weighted Imaging Method for Activity Evaluation
in Crohn's Disease Patients Underwent Magnetic Resonance Enterography
Version:2Date:27 August 2014
Reviewer: Zhixiang Zuo
Reviewer's report:
*Minor Essential Revisions*
1. The abbreviated words should be completely written when they occur at first
time, for example, MRI, DWI, MR-score-S, CECDAI-S.
2. A summary table is needed for the comparison of sensitivity and specificity
between MRE, DWI and MRE+DWI
3. In Figure 1, the titles for x/y axes should be added
4. Figure 2 only shows the examples of MRE surpassing DWI, however, the
author was intended to prove that MRE+DWI performs better than DWI or MRE
alone.
5. Please explain "Although all MR variables showed
223 the high specificity close to 100%, Area Under the Receiver Operator Curve
(AUROC)
224 indicated that bowel wall enhancement was the optimal predictor of
inflammation
225 (AUROC = 0.87) with the satisfactory sensitiv ity (79.4%) and specific ity
(94.3 %)."
6. Please reconstruct the result "MRE combined with DWI predicts the
endoscopic disease activity"
7. Language should be refined.
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: 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/s12876-015-0235-0 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Validation of the Diffusion-weighted Imaging Method for Activity Evaluation
in Crohn's Disease Patients Underwent Magnetic Resonance Enterography
Version:2Date:2 September 2014
Reviewer: Aiping Mao
Reviewer's report:
The authors evaluate the clinical value of DWI and MRE in assessing active
inflammation in CD.As a non-invasive tool, MRE has been used to evaluate
Crohn’s Disease activity in many recent researchers. Most of them focus on
gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted sequence. It is advanced and reasonable for
the authors to combined DWI with MRE to evaluate CD. But I still have some
question about the method as follows:
1. In the part of MRI evaluation, how to definite “DWI hyper-intensity”, please
illustrate it clearly.
2. In the part of “MRE combined with DWI improves the diagnostic accuracy for
active lesions?”, authors used three protocols. The Protocol A is” only DW
imaging were used”. I think it is hard to find out the inflammatory bowel segment
just use DWI. The authors should explain it.
3. In the part of “MRE combined with DWI improves the diagnostic accuracy for
active lesions?”, both protocol A and C used DWI. In these two protocols, Which
B value was used?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0231-4 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Heterogeneity of Amplification of HER2, EGFR, CCND1 and MYC in
Gastric Cancer
Version:2Date:12 November 2014
Reviewer: Rocco Cappellesso
Reviewer's report:
In this study the authors dealt with intratumor heterogeneity in gastric cancer and
focused on HER2, EGFR, CCND1, and MYC amplification and HER2 protein
expression. The aim was well defined, the methods appropriate, the findings
interesting, images are good, and the discussion is properly addressed.However,
I have some minor concerns that the authors should address:
1. In the supplementary Table 1 the total number of cancers is 109 on the top of
the table but then they decrease to 94 or less. Control these incongruities.
2. The minimum number of nuclei for each spot that were evaluated should be
stated in FISH scoring.
3. A statistical analysis paragraph should be added to the methods.
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:
None to declare.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0239-9 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Randomized Trial of Tofacitinib in Active Ulcerative Colitis: Analysis of
Efficacy Based on Patient-Reported Outcomes
Version:2Date:28 October 2014
Reviewer: Barrett Levesque
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
The author must respond to these before a decision on publication can
be reached. For example additional necessary experiments or controls
statistical mistakes errors in interpretation.
Overall, no major compulsory revisions. Overall, a helpful analysis of
IBDQ and IBDPRTI data in the phase 2 tofacitinib trial. Given the
recent emphasis in Patient reported outcome measures, this paper adds
helpful data for those studying the field or using PROs/quality of life
measures in their research.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Line 307: The results indicate that this PRO could be used as a
complementary endpoint rather than a " a PRO should be.. Complementary².
Other PRO¹s may be more sensitive and specific
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:
When completing your declaration please consider the following questions:
-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 paper either now or in the future? No.
- Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any
way gain or lose financially from the publication of this paper either
now or in the future?no
- Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to
the content of the manuscript? 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?no
- Do you have any other financial competing interests?
COI: consultant , Takeda; consultant (past) abbvie,
- Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
Research in PRO outcome measures
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0233-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic Inside stent placement is suitable as a bridging treatment for
preoperative biliary tract cancer
Version:3Date:23 July 2014
Reviewer: Jong Ho Moon
Reviewer's report:
1. First sentence of the Introduction describes general concept of endoscopic
biliary drainage. I recommend that the need and usefulness of the endoscopic
preoperative biliary drainage would be described. Please, describe in aspect of
preoperative drainage.
2. Although this study is retrospective design, clarify the inclusion and exclusion
criteria. Please describe the indications of preoperative chemotherapy or
chemoradiotherapy (stage or resectability?).
3. Please, describe indication or conditions for ENBD or multiple stenting.
4. How you can decide the diameter and length of the stent in both groups?
Please, describe about it in method section.
5. What is the length of the nylon thread to aid removal of stent?
6. Please, define the stent occlusion, stent migration and acute cholangitis for the
evaluation. I recommend describing definitions about evaluation points.
7. The purpose of inside placement of the stent is to prevent duodenobiliary
reflux through the stent. However, sphincterotomy may allow the reflux. Please,
add data of sphincterotomy in both groups. And, if sphincterotomy was
performed, describe the length (major or minor) of the sphincterotomy.
8. First two sentences of the Result were overlapped with contents in the
Patients.
9. Please, provide figures of cases. I recommend that you add figures of two
cases of hilar stricture and distal biliary stricture.
10. There are several articles about “inside” placement of self-expandable
metallic stent. Please, discuss about comparisons of inside stent with metallic
stents for the “inside” placement for the preoperative biliary drainage, especially
for the non-hilar strictures.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 May;75(5):1080-5.
Feasibility of placing a modified fully covered self-expandable metal stent above
the papilla to minimize stent-induced bile duct injury in patients with refractory
benign biliary strictures (with videos).
Moon JH, Choi HJ, Koo HC, Han SH, Lee TH, Cho YD, Park SH, Kim SJ.
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:
There are no competing interests.