JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-115 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:1HNMR-based Metabonomic profile of Rats with Experimental Acute
Pancreatitis: a controlled experiment
Version:1Date:18 March 2014
Reviewer: Nigel Turner
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript Li et al have examined the metabolite profile of plasma, 12 hrs
after the induction of experimental induction of acute pancreatitis in rats. They
observed changes in a number of key metabolites and propose that these
metabolites may serve as biomarkers for acute pancreatitis. Some issues require
attention.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1) The authors do not provide any evidence for the effectiveness of the sodium
taurochlorate treatment in inducing pancreatitis in their model (e.g. histological or
biochemical evidence of pancreatic inflammation). This is a limitation of the study
and at the very least they should provide a reference to previous literature that
has successfully used this experimental approach (i.e. dose and timing) to induce
pancreatitis.
2) Several of the changes seen in metabolites are not consistent with what has
been observed in serum or urine samples from patients with pancreatitis (Ref 22
and 24). For example, although TMAO changes in a similar direction to that in ref
24, 3-hydroxybutyrate is reduced in humans with pancreatitis (ref 24), but
increased in the current rodent model. Similarly, lactate levels are increased in
this rodent model, but are not substantially altered in urine of humans with acute
or chronic pancreatitis (Ref 22). These inconsistencies are concerning, given the
authors’ proposal to use the metabolites in the current study as biomarkers for
pancreatitis. Some additional discussion of this point is needed, including
experimental differences that may explain these discrepancies, as well as
reference to other available metabolite data in this area from animal models and
humans.
3) In the discussion, the authors have made very definitive conclusions about the
observed metabolite changes and how these relate to changes in biological
parameters/pathways. However, they do not provide any references to back up
their assumptions/conclusions on what their data means. For example, an
increase in unsaturated fatty acids in the circulation could occur for multiple
reasons (e.g. altered uptake or utilisation of lipids), but the authors have
concluded that this must reflect a release of fatty acids from from membrane
lipids and a subsequent change in cell membrane stability. There is no reference
for this or discussion of what else a change in circulating unsaturated fatty acids
could signify. This is similar for most of the metabolites and this section needs to
be improved dramatically.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-14-115 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:1HNMR-based Metabonomic profile of Rats with Experimental Acute
Pancreatitis: a controlled experiment
Version:1Date:23 March 2014
Reviewer: Qingchuan Zhao
Reviewer's report:
This study compared the metabolic profile between rat with AP and sham
laparotomy. The results provide the information of a different metabolic profile
between the two groups.
Major comments
First, it is not explained in the text what is the meaning of investigating those
parameters in early stage of AP. The author stated that it may “allow early
diagnosis”, however, compared with serum amylase, those biomarkers may be
cumbersome to use in diagnosing AP and their accuracies are not investigated.
Additionally, why the authors consider these parameters are helpful for
investigating the pathogenesis of AP or indentifying potential therapeutic targets?
Whether the changed metabolic profile correlated with the severity of AP? These
questions are not explained and make the whole manuscript unintelligible.
Second, it is reported that the blood samples were obtained 12 hours after AP
induction. What is the reason that the 12 hours is chose? What about the
biomarkers levels in an even earlier stage of AP?
Third, the metabolic disturbance detected in the AP group may not be specific for
AP. It is possible that the changed metabolic profile is caused by excessive
inflammation rather than pancreatitis.
Minor comments
It is not a randomized controlled trial. RCT is used to test the efficacy or
effectiveness of various types of medical intervention within a patient population.
Spelling mistakes such as “the two groups shew a jumbly distribution”,
“Comparisons of small molecule metabolites clevels between AP and SO group”
The “Compared to sham operation group (SO)” in the tables should be described
in the foot note.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-14-112 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Classification of adults suffering from typical gastroesophageal reflux
disease symptoms: contribution of latent class analysis in a European
observational study
Version:1Date:20 March 2014
Reviewer: Dan Dumitrascu
Reviewer's report:
major comments: NA
minor comments:
1. a short description of the LCA would be useful for the less familiarized readers
2. the selection of 5 classes seems rather empirical and should be better
supported by scientific arguments
3. authors should comment briefly on the practical usefulness of this analysis
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 10.1186/1471-230X-14-112 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Classification of adults suffering from typical gastroesophageal reflux
disease symptoms: contribution of latent class analysis in a European
observational study
Version:1Date:24 March 2014
Reviewer: Fabio Pace
Reviewer's report:
The paper is interesting, wel written clear and statistically sound. My only doubt
regards the clinical usefulness of the information gathered by means of LCA
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest 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 10.1186/1471-230X-14-114 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:A new Adult Appendicitis Score improves diagnostic accuracy of acute
appendicitis - A prospective study
Version:2Date:27 March 2014
Reviewer: Sang-Jeon Lee
Reviewer's report:
I think this study is well designed and well controlled.
The resuling data is valuable and well interpretated.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-14-114 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:A new Adult Appendicitis Score improves diagnostic accuracy of acute
appendicitis - A prospective study
Version:2Date:29 March 2014
Reviewer: Neil Merrett
Reviewer's report:
Well written paper developing a new scoring system for acute appendicitis based
on proprestively developed data.
No major compulsory issues
No minor essential revisions
discretionary revisions. Paper could be improved by addressing the following
issues
1. Ct had high sensitivity and specificity but was only performed in a small
number of patients. what were the indications for CT scanning used in the study
2. There is much discussion of the risks associated with ionising radiation
particulalry in the young. Rather than simply give a citation to EJ Hall 2008, could
this actual risk be quatified in the discussion
3. Ultrasound is not discussed as a "low risk" diagnostic imaging tool. Could the
role of ultrasound in diagnosis of appendicits be discussed and would ultrasound
have improved diagnosis in those determined as having medium risk by this
scoring method
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 10.1186/1471-230X-14-114 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:A new Adult Appendicitis Score improves diagnostic accuracy of acute
appendicitis - A prospective study
Version:2Date:30 March 2014
Reviewer: Han-Ping Wu
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
The new score is used to improve the diagnostic accuracy of acute appendicitis.
However, the variables in this score should be redesigned because the variables
are more complicated than those in the Alvarado score. Also, the weights of
variables remain equivocal. The design seems too complicated and should be
simp and easily applied in clinical practice.
Minor Essential Revisionsle
Table 3 and Table 4 should be combined as a single table
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 competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-114 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:A new Adult Appendicitis Score improves diagnostic accuracy of acute
appendicitis - A prospective study
Version:3Date:30 May 2014
Reviewer: Han-Ping Wu
Reviewer's report:
After re-reviewing in detail, the authors did not revised the manuscript based on
my suggestions.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-113 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Association of MRC-1 and IL-28B with the treatment outcome of hepatitis
C: a case control study
Version: 1Date:10 October 2013
Reviewer: Salvatore Petta
Reviewer's report:
In this study PENG and colleagues tested in a Chinese population the
performance of IL28B and MRC-1 SNP in the prediction of both RVR and SVR to
PEG-IFN plus RBV therapy. The overall interest of the is limited by different
issues:
1) In an era where PEG-IFN plus RBV therapy is not more the standard therapy
for CHC, due to the actual availability of first generation PIs, and the next
availability of new shorter therapeutic regimens with or without IFN, this study
does not add clinical relevant data. In fact this study falls to identify, in addition to
the well known role of IL28B, a very effective prediction rule for selection of
patients for PEG-IFN/RBV only
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:
none
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-113 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Association of MRC-1 and IL-28B with the treatment outcome of hepatitis C:
a case control study
Version:2Date:6 February 2014
Reviewer: Salvatore Petta
Reviewer's report:
Acceptable changes. No further 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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-113 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Association of MRC-1 and IL-28B with the treatment outcome of hepatitis C:
a case control study
Version:2Date:25 April 2014
Reviewer: Faisal M Sanai
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is vastly improved in its present format. There are minor issues
that I feel could be addressed to improve its quality further:
1. Although the language is improved, there are still certain sections that fall
below the publishing standards par.
2. When representing the P values, i notice that the authors have used varying
formats. In some instances they've used two decimal points (like P=0.01)
whereas in others they have 4 decimal points (like P=0.0012) and on other
instances represented P values as P=3.3 x 10-5. I would recommend a
standardization of P values presentation where 3 or 4 decimal points used
throughout and resorting to P<0.0001 where indicated.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-14-111 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:A randomised, controlled study of small intestinal motility in patients treated
with sacral nerve stimulation for irritable bowel syndrome.
Version:2Date:23 March 2014
Reviewer: Gregory Thomas
Reviewer's report:
This is very interesting study. It is well designed and makes a useful addition to
the literature. It is well written and clearly laid out. It is of interest that it improves
the symptoms of IBS, and yet shows no objective improvement in gsatric or small
bowel motility.
Major compulsory revisions
1. Are the patients used in the study the same as those reported in the recent
Annals paper? This will need to be mentioned if so.
2. Was a power calculation attempted and if not, why not?
3. Was a "washout period" during the cross over considered?
4. Can the authors define "mixed ibs"?
5. There is a wide range of length of exposure to sns in those patients included.
Do the authors feel this may have influenced results? Could they suggest a
minimum time of exposure to merit inclusion in this study?
6. Where the sns devices implanted as part of their usual clinical care or was this
as part of a previous study? At present in the UK, the use of sns is restricted to
faecal incontinence and constipation and not ibs.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-14-111 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:A randomised, controlled study of small intestinal motility in patients treated
with sacral nerve stimulation for irritable bowel syndrome.
Version:4Date:13 May 2014
Reviewer: Peter Bytzer
Reviewer's report:
I am very pleased to see this revised version. I have a few suggestions for:
Discretionary Revisions
1. I suggest that the P-values in the abstract are also rounded to the nearest
integer in line with my recommendation for the main text
2. On page 12, I suggest that the authors give the precise number of patients,
who were unblinded to the stimulator activation in stead of stating "around
three-fifths..."
3. Also on page 12: please rephrase last 5 lines. Apparently something is
missing.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-14-111 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:A randomised, controlled study of small intestinal motility in patients treated
with sacral nerve stimulation for irritable bowel syndrome.
Version:4Date:26 May 2014
Reviewer: Gregory Thomas
Reviewer's report:
I am satisfied with the author's reposnses to my initial review. No further changes
are needed.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-14-110 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Gastrinoma and neurofibromatosis type 2: the first case report and review
of the literature.
Version:2Date:15 November 2013
Reviewer: Antongiulio Faggiano
Reviewer's report:
Massironi et al. reported about an unusual association between NF2 and
gastrin-secreting PNET. Although the report is original some concerns limits the
comprehension of the article and its scientific value.
Major points
1) the main concern is about the lack of a histo/citological diagnosis of NET. The
pathological demonstration of malignant cell and thier neuroendocrine nature is
mandatory to conclude that the nodule within the pancreas is a PNET.The
authors need to provide information about.
2) the authors conclude that the case in object is a gastrinoma on the basis of the
association between peptic ulcer anf hypergastrinemia. However, to demonstrate
an increased gastric acid outout (pH <2) is necessary to achieve the biochemical
diagnosis of ZES. Authors should provide this information. Furthermore, all
possible causes of hypergastrinemia have to be carefully excluded, not only
HP-positive gastritis (please see ENETS guideline, Neuroendocrinology
2012;95:98)
3) Finally, how long did you stop PPI before serum gastrin assessment? This
point is crucial, because a week at least is required after PPI withdrawal
4) Secretin test was not necessary in this case due the really high levels of
serum gastrin and once again it could not replace the assessment of pH which is
at opposite diagnostic
5) Due to the rare comination of different type of tumor a MEN1-like phenotype is
consistent and therefore, a genetic test for the CDKN1B gene is required. Please
provide information
Minor point
1) page 6, galliumPET, which type of somatostatin analogue? please detail
2) Figure 1, replace gastrin with serum gastrin levels
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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-110 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Gastrinoma and neurofibromatosis type 2: the first case report and review
of the literature.
Version:2Date:2 March 2014
Reviewer: Gabriele Capurso
Reviewer's report:
Massironi et al. report a case of association between a sporadic Gastrinoma
(although the suspect of a MEN1 is discussed) and a NF2 syndrome.
The paper is clearly presented. I am just not convinced about the clinical
relevance, as there are no specific data here supporting an association which is
not merely occasional.
Minor revisions:
- Page 4: It is arguable that ZES is the commonest functional PETs (it is in MEN1
maybe, but not overall).
- Page 4: the commonest primary localization of gstrinomas is in the
peripancreatic duodenal wall, not in the pancreas! (please see reviews from
Norton and Jensen).
English needs revision.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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 have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-110 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Gastrinoma and neurofibromatosis type 2: the first case report and review
of the literature.
Version:4Date:9 May 2014
Reviewer: Gabriele Capurso
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has substantially improved. I would ask the authors some more
details about the cytological diagnosis obtained by EUS, in terms of WHO
classification and G grade (ki67 index).
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 conflicts of interest
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-110 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Gastrinoma and neurofibromatosis type 2: the first case report and review
of the literature.
Version:4Date:12 May 2014
Reviewer: Antongiulio Faggiano
Reviewer's report:
The revised version of the article is now accetable for pubblication in BMC
Gastroenterology
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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-109 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Hepatobiliary cystadenocarcinoma without mesenchymal stroma in a
female patient: a case report
Version:1Date:7 March 2014
Reviewer: omar shah
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory
The differentiation of biliary cystadenocarcinomas from IMPN-B and intrahepatic
cholangiocarcinoma is a pathologist’s nightmare, with many pathologists
reluctant for giving a diagnosis of cystadenocarcinoma when OS is missing;
a) Did you use any IHC staining for mucins and ck-7/20.
b) How many samples of the specimen were analysed, as in some patients OS
may be focally present.
The article needs more CT pictographs with vivid delineation of the lesion and
the surrounding liver architecture and a IHC picture if done.
The USG picture quality is not so good.
Some intrao-operative photographs and the pictures when grossing the
specimen would be more than handful.
Minor Essential Revision
Your article has some grammatical corrections amidst the colloquialism of
language.
The exclusivity of ovarian stroma and female sex as regarding
cystadenocarcinomas is not a rule thou much more common.(Bardin et al, 2004).
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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-109 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Hepatobiliary cystadenocarcinoma without mesenchymal stroma in a
female patient: a case report
Version:1Date:5 May 2014
Reviewer: bhushan bhole
Reviewer's report:
This case report indeed describes a rare form of case.
1) Authors have done thorough literature search to suggest possible etiology
which can be little shortened.
2) Though they have mentioned about poor prognosis, they have not mentioned
survival rates.
3)Early detection and complete resection holds true for almost all cancers.
Absence of OS should not lead to conclude the same.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-14-108 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Intestinal obstruction due to dual gastrointestinal stenosis in infants:
diagnosis and management of 3 cases
Version:2Date:15 March 2014
Reviewer: Anand Pandey
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
The authors, by mistake, have labelled atresia as intestinal stenosis. From the
description made by them, I feel that the diagnosis in these patients is type I
atresia with central perforation of the obstructing diaphragm.
As regard to the claim of its rarity in the abstract, type I atresia is not that rare. It
may be probable that the geographical location of the authors’ centre may be so.
It is not clear why the authors are using the term GI septum, rather than using
type I atresia. Is there any confusion in it? If so, it should be more clarified.
Type I atresia with central perforation/opening presents a bit late. There may be
failure to thrive and history of repeated vomiting. I do not agree with the authors
as regard to the definition of stenosis. Be central opening or not, it is type I
atresia. Stenosis results due to muscular thickening, which leads to luminal
narrowing. If authors differ, they must provide a suitable rebuttal.
Patient 3 appears to be having single septum. Where was other septum? Was it
stricture? If so, it is not dual atresia. Please clarify.
You have freely interchanged the terms atresia, stenosis, and stricture. It is not
correct. Atresia is failure of a lumen to get canalized. Stenosis has been
described above. Lastly, stricture is a circumferential narrowing of a lumen
caused by a pathological process. Your discussion, hence, is incorrect.
As regard to the presence of atresia, it is a standard practice to inject saline distal
to the site of obstruction, which may identify distal atresia. Be it anywhere, the
management protocol will remain same. Please clarify.
The figures are not of good quality. They are not clear.
“Dr. Li-e Huang undertook the statistical analysis”. It appears to be gifted
authorship. Where is statistical analysis in this case report? “contributed
important reagents”- How can providing reagents makes some one author.
He/She can be at best mentioned in the acknowledgement. Your contribution
part is not clear.
Dual atresia is not as uncommon (search in pubmed using multiple atresias).
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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 10.1186/1471-230X-14-108 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Intestinal obstruction due to dual gastrointestinal stenosis in infants:
diagnosis and management of 3 cases
Version:2Date:16 March 2014
Reviewer: atul malhotra
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions
The authors present an interesting series of intestinal obstructions due to dual
stenotic lesions.
Overall, the manuscript is well written but i would encorage the authors to make
the following revisions:
The syntax could be improved with the help of a languaqe editor.
Discussion can be impoved by reference to more studies related to the topic. It
seems light at the moment.
The photographs need to adhere to resolution standards as specified in the
instructions to authors. Figure 2 in particular is not clear.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-14-107 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Clinical and Psychosocial Variables Associated with Behavioral Intentions
to Undergo Surveillance Endoscopy.
Version:3Date:15 February 2014
Reviewer: Chelsea Drennan
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
None.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. The Methods section of the manuscript needs further explanation of the
inclusion and exclusion criteria.
2. The Background section of the Abstract should be revised to state ‘Many
patients with Barrett’s Esophagus do not participate in guideline-recommended
endoscopic surveillance.’, as it is not an issue of receipt, but one of adherence to
guidelines.
3. The Methods section of the Abstract should be revised to state potential
subjects were screened using the EMR of a regional VA medical center and a
pathologically confirmed BE surveillance registry. Likewise, the BE registry
population response rate is missing from the Methods section of the manuscript.
Discretionary Revisions:
1. The Results section of the Abstract could be revised to include a one sentence
description of the study population as this snap-shot of predominantly
college-educated, white males is not generalizable or further emphasize the
demographics of the participants in the Discussion section of the manuscript.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-14-107 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Clinical and Psychosocial Variables Associated with Behavioral Intentions
to Undergo Surveillance Endoscopy.
Version:4Date:20 May 2014
Reviewer: Chelsea Drennan
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
None.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. In the Methods section, 1st paragraph, the sentence “All of these participants
also had a pathologically confirmed diagnosis of BE.” should be included in the
inclusion criteria statement; unless, participants obtained from the VA EMR did
not have pathologically confirmed BE.
2. The Results section mentions that the participants were college educated
(59.3%) twice in the same paragraph; one should be removed.
Discretionary Revisions:
None.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-14-107 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Clinical and Psychosocial Variables Associated with Behavioral Intentions
to Undergo Surveillance Endoscopy.
Version:4Date:19 May 2014
Reviewer: Massimiliano di Pietro
Reviewer's report:
The authors have adequately addressed the points raised in the previous review.
I have no further comments
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 10.1186/1471-230X-14-105 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Sub-dividing high-risk gastrointestinal stromal tumors help to precisely
predict prognosis and efficiency of imatinib adjuvant therapy
Version:2Date:24 April 2014
Reviewer: Yeong Yeh Lee
Reviewer's report:
The current paper reports on factors which can potentially provide better
prognostic information in high risk GISTs.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Please clarify in more details (including purpose served) on test and validation
cohorts described in the Methods section.
2. How is serosa invasion different from tumor rupture? This will need to be
explained. Serosa invasion has not been described in the GISTs’ literatures, why
is this so? Has this observation been validated?
3. For those patients that received imatinib, did measurements of KIT 11 and 9
exon mutations provide any prognostic information? Are there any associations
with these markers with serosa invasion and high mitotic counts?
4. P values were reported in Table 1, which I assume mean that there are no
differences between the test and validation cohorts in reported variables. If yes,
this should be mentioned in the results.
5. Please discuss on limitations of mitotic counting and serosa invasion.
6. Please explain the modified NIH criteria used as the reference to derive the
AUCs for ROC analysis in Figure 3.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Please explain R0 resection; it would be relevant to those not familiar with
surgical terms.
2. For Figure 1, may need to revise title as “pathological performances of serosa
invasion” is not clear
2. For Tables 2 and 3, please include in legends, the statistical tests used for the
two different P values that were reported.
3. Please check spelling throughout the manuscript for example “mitoesis” in
Table 3 and 4.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-14-105 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation of high-risk clinicopathological indicators in gastrointestinal
stromal tumors for prognosis and imatinib treatment outcome
Version:3Date:27 May 2014
Reviewer: Yeong Yeh Lee
Reviewer's report:
Authors have adequately addressed the concerns raised.
Major Compulsory Revisions
None
Minor Essential Revisions
None
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 declared
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-104 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Clinical Impact of Body Mass Index on Bactibilia and Bacteremia
Version:2Date:6 May 2014
Reviewer: Christopher L Bowlus
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript describes a retrospective study of cholecystectomies performed
for acute cholecystitis at a single hospital in Korea and sought to find
associations with bactibilia and bactermia, both of which are predictors of illness
severity. The findings of the association with BMI are novel but there are major
concerns regarding the validity of the associations. In addition, the significance of
the findings are limited.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The number of cases excluded from analysis was more than 50% of the
original cohort. This likely led to significant bias in the sample that was analyzed.
In addition, other clinical outcomes would be more meaningful that bactibilia or
bacteremia, e.g. length of hospital stay, complications, morbidity, etc., and could
lead to the inclusion of a greater sample. A separate or ancillary study of the
cohort to determine if the association with BMI holds should be performed.
2. The lack of any evidence of an association of BMI with either bactibilia or
bactermia on univariate analysis (P-values > 0.5), yet significant associations on
multivariate analysis suggests that this association is incorrect or a statistical
aberration. An explanation for this from an expert biostatistician is required.
Minor Revisions:
The tables detailing the microbiology is not particularly relevant to this study and
could be abbreviated or excluded. A more thorough description of the patient
population would be of more value.
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:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-104 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Clinical Impact of Body Mass Index on Bactibilia and Bacteremia
Version:2Date:14 May 2014
Reviewer: Ali Azarm
Reviewer's report:
As a retrospective study in a single center reviewing 139 patients who underwent
cholecystectomy for calculous cholecystitis comparing the bactibilia and
bacteremia and its relation with BMI, the most important question which was not
addressed is the power of study statistically.
The authors have not addressed in the background other studies about
prevalence of bactibilia and bacteremia in other studies. This can be added to the
manuscript by a quick literature search.
The authors do not analyze and discuss the relation of infection with hospital stay
that they quoted on line 63.
In the bacteriologic analysis section, no statistical calculation ( p value) of certain
detected bacteria addressed. it needs to be added to manuscripts.
As a secondary outcome, it would be more reasonable to look at the mortality
rate of each group (positive or negative bactibilia and bacteremia) and its relation
to BMI since in the discussion part the authors have addressed other studies
mortality rate.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-14-103 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:A rapid, simple questionnaire to assess gastrointestinal symptoms after 1
oral ferrous sulphate supplementation.
Version:1Date:10 April 2014
Reviewer: Duowu Zou
Reviewer's report:
This study examines 10 subjects per group using a questionnaire to assess
gastrointestinal symptoms after oral ferrous sulphate supplementation. I think this
article could be published.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-14-103 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:A rapid, simple questionnaire to assess gastrointestinal symptoms after 1
oral ferrous sulphate supplementation.
Version:1Date:13 April 2014
Reviewer: Christoph Gasche
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting study on the development of a questionnaire on side effects
of oral iron therapy , The authors evaluated the questionnaire in 20 patients
under oral iron therapy and identified significant differences between iron and
placebo treated patients.
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:
no competing interest
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-103 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:A rapid, simple questionnaire to assess gastrointestinal symptoms after 1
oral ferrous sulphate supplementation.
Version:1Date:18 April 2014
Reviewer: Christophe Chassard
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript by Pereira et al. reports the evaluation of a new questionnaire to
assess gastrointestinal symptoms during iron supplementation. The
questionnaire has been validated in a double-blind placebo-controlled
randomized parallel trial involving 20 volunteers. Despite the low number of
volunteers enrolled, assessment of gastrointestinal symptoms sounds promising
and rapid. The questionnaire provides a useful option to highlight the most
frequent symptoms usually reported. The data, methods and strategy shown in
the manuscript are of interest and appropriate to be discussed in BMC
Gastroenterology.
I have however some comments that are listed below.
Minor Essential Revisions
Background: authors should add to the section a short paragraph providing basic
information about regular iron supplementation strategies (different iron
compounds and forms, posology etc…). This would be helpful to understand why
they have selected ferrous iron.
Methods: did authors consider an alternative design for the study such as a
cross-sectional trial instead of a basic DBPC trial? Taking in account the low
number of volunteers involved, this design would have been more powerful in
term of statistical analysis. Please comment on this.
Table 2: It would be interesting to provide the P values even if statistical tests are
NS. This would help the reader to distinguish the border line P values and those
clearly far away from the significant value.
Results and discussion: in general, results should be more discussed. Authors
could add a few sentences trying to find explanations or connections between
ferrous sulphate supplementation and the most important gastrointestinal
symptoms revealed by the study.
Authors should also pay attention to the supplement itself. By using iron
sulphate, they obviously provide ferrous iron to the colonic microbiota but also a
lot of sulphate which could be primary responsible for the black stools by
promoting microbial sulfato-reduction. Sulphate-reducing bacteria need iron but
also sulphate for their growth and the use of iron fumarate or iron EDTA could
lead to substantial differences in the answers of volunteers in a similar
experiment.
L218: the term sulphate-reducing bacteria should be used instead of
sulphur-reducing bacteria. Please correct.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-14-102 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:"Treatment of acute pancreatitis with protease inhibitors: an updated
systematic review and meta-analysis."
Version: 1Date:13 October 2013
Reviewer: Anubhav Mittal
Reviewer's report:
Major Revisions
1. Why were trials where protease inhibitors given oral, intra-arterial or via
intra-abdominal infusions excluded? Certainly the title of the paper does not
suggest that the method of giving anti-protease therapy would be a limiting
factors. The authors need to explain the reasons and also modify the title
accordingly.
2. Why was the administration of FFP an exclusion factor?
3. Also exclusion criteria 11 seems very global and could introduce bias. The
authors need to clarify which papers were removed due to this exclusion criteria
and why?
4. One of the problems with studies in acute pancreatitis is that each RCT uses
differing definitions of severity. This leads to misclassification of patients into
mild, moderate or severe pancreatitis and makes any meta-analysis difficult. How
did the authors deal with this problem? How many different definitions of severity
were used in the 17 RCTs?
5. Outcome measures should be separated into primary and secondary.
6. GRADE – it was mentioned in the letter but where is the analysis? It would be
nice to know how the body of evidence stacks up in terms of quality.
7. Not enough is made of the fact that protease therapy did reduce mortality with
low heterogeneity in the subgroup of patients with severe acute pancreatitis. This
needs to be discussed further. Perhaps antiprotease therapy is indicated in this
subgroup of patients? A Forest plot would be helpful for this subgroup analysis.
8. The conclusion is nihilistic. There is recent animal research showing that
perhaps targeting anti-proteases to mesenteric lymph may be a way forward.
Certainly, there should be a paragraph in the discussion about where to from
here? New directions in research should be discussed rather than shutting the
door forever on this type of therapy.
Minor Revisions
The language and style of writing can be improved 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 no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-102 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:"Treatment of acute pancreatitis with protease inhibitors: an updated
systematic review and meta-analysis."
Version:1Date:15 November 2013
Reviewer: Rakesh Kochhar
Reviewer's report:
Major revisions
1 Sensitivity analysis of low risk of bias studies may be added along with a
Forrest plot
2 It will be better if pooled risk differences with CI are given for all outcome
measures in text and not only for death
3 Para 1 on page 22 is difficult to comprehend. Additionally the authors have
clubbed 3 things together: industrial support, sample size calculation and
outcome. However description of each is incomplete and quite mixed up.
4 The quality of evidence was evaluated by Jadad score and GRADE system.
Description of this should come in methods. Currently its done in results section
directly.
5 It is not clear how articles were excluded by secondary evaluation. They have
also included one abstract in their analysis. I am not sure if that is right.
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: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-102 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:"Treatment of acute pancreatitis with protease inhibitors: an updated
systematic review and meta-analysis."
Version:2Date:16 December 2013
Reviewer: Anubhav Mittal
Reviewer's report:
Very few of my comments and concerns were addressed.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-14-102 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:"Treatment of acute pancreatitis with protease inhibitors: an updated
systematic review and meta-analysis."
Version:2Date:27 December 2013
Reviewer: Rupjyoti Talukdar
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript looks better now.
MINOR ESSENTIAL REVISIONS:
There are several language/grammatical corrections that needs to be corrected.
Following are few of them:
1. Page 11: Change the word "adjudicated" to "resolved".
2. Page 13 line 3-4: Change "There found no projecting or on going …… " to "No
on going ……..".
3. Page 15 line 2-3: Change "All studies made no mention on ……" to " No
studies mentioned about ……".
4. Page 17 line 12: Remove 'and'.
5. Page 17 last line: Changed "valuated" to "evaluated".
6. Page 18 line 12: Change "digestive haemorrhage" to "gastrointestinal
bleeding".
7. Page 18 line 12: Define metabolic failure.
The last paragraph of the discussion still lacks clarity. Please rewrite that
paragraph.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-14-101 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Physical Activity is Associated with Reduced Risk of Esophageal Cancer,
Particularly Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and
Meta-Analysis
Version:2Date:14 March 2014
Reviewer: Anthony Gamboa
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
none
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Abstract page, Results section, second-to-last sentence: should read “There
were only two studies” instead of “There was only two studies”
2. Statistical Analysis section, third sentence from the end: need a “-“ in “p
values.” Should read “All p-values were two tailed.”
3. Table 1. The first study author is misspelled. It should read Huerta instead of
Huarta.
- Discretionary Revisions
4. Introduction section, first paragraph, third sentence: consider re-wording the
end of this sentence starting with, “… ranging from erosive esophagitis….”
5. Introduction section, first paragraph, fourth sentence beginning with “Routine
endoscopic surveillance…”: consider deleting the comma in this sentence and,
as I read this sentence, it should say “Routine endoscopic surveillance of
patients with BE and endoscopic eradication therapy for a subset of patients with
high-grade dysplasia are recommended” instead of ”…is recommended” since
you are referring to both endoscopic surveillance and eradication therapy.
6. Methods, Data Abstraction section, first sentence: delete comma after the
word “association.” Should read “… and estimates of association were
independently abstracted….”
7. Results, Study Flow section. Fifth sentence. The first two commas are not
needed. Consider removing these so the sentence reads: “Six studies on dietary
or socioeconomic risk factors for cancer mentioned assessing physical activity as
a covariate but did not specifically measure or report association between
physical activity and esophageal cancer per se;…”
8. Results, Sensitivity Analysis section, second sentence: Comma following
“ESCC” is not needed. Should read. “… risk of ESCC resulted in resolution….”
9. Discussion, Implications for Clinical Practice and Future Research section,
fourth sentence: the comma following “EAC” is not needed. Should read,
“…progression to EAC may help shed….”
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