JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0276-4 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Influence of laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy and open gastrectomy on
serum interleukin-6 levels in patients with gastric cancer among Asian
populations
Version:3Date:15 January 2015
Reviewer: Makoto Meguro
Reviewer's report:
The paper is a meta-analysis with 54 studies selected by PubMed, EBSCO,
Ovid, Wiley, Web of Science, WANFANG and VIP databases. Authors indicate
‘’compared with OG, LAG reduces the expression of IL-6 effectively and further
inhibits inflammatory reaction for GC patients among Asian population’’.
Although this study was well documented, there are significantly critical and
crucial problems as described below
> Meta-analysis should be performed by including Cochrane Library and
EMBASE databases.
> IL-6 values, tumor progression status, lymph node dissection status, and
reconstruction methods such as B-I or Roux-Y are not shown in Table 1.
Therefore, there are not easy to understand these reports.
> In the results section (p8 the last paragraph), Figure 6C shows asymmetric
shape, so there is existence of publication bias. Figure 6D shows symmetric
shape, so there is no existence of publication bias. A contradiction exists in this
results sention. And then, you should correspond to the existence of publication
bias.
> Authors described ‘’Subgroup analysis based on country showed that, in
Chinese and Japanese GC patients, both 40 postoperative and postoperative
increased serum IL-6 levels in LAG group were significantly lower 41 than those
in OG group (all P < 0.05); In Korean GC patients, postoperative and
postoperative 42 increased serum IL-6 levels in LAG group and OG group had
no obvious statistical differences (all 43 P > 0.05)’’.
Ref. 33 (Jung IK et al. reported) is shown only each 10 patients. This is not
universal in Korea’s GC operation. Therefore, this paper’s conclusion is
overstatement, so it is needed larger sample-sizes as you pointed out in
conclusion.
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.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0276-4 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Influence of laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy and open gastrectomy on
serum interleukin-6 levels in patients with gastric cancer among Asian
populations
Version:3Date:20 January 2015
Reviewer: Konstantinos Tsimogiannis
Reviewer's report:
A well prresented paper, though the introduction feels quite long. Could be
shortened
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/s12876-015-0276-4 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Influence of laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy and open gastrectomy on
serum interleukin-6 levels in patients with gastric cancer among Asian
populations
Version:5Date:11 February 2015
Reviewer: Makoto Meguro
Reviewer's report:
The authors have satisfactorily addressed prior comments and concerns in the
revised manuscript.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0283-5 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:IL-6, through p-STAT3 rather than p-STAT1, activates
hepatocarcinogenesis and affects survival of hepatocellular carcinoma patients
Version:3Date:18 August 2014
Reviewer: Federico Moriconi
Reviewer's report:
Major points of criticisms:
1) The authors write that tissue p-STAT-3 presents a predominant immunostain
rate unlike p-STAT-1 in all HCC specimens. On the upper side of Fig. 4-1
(Picture p-STAT-1 Level I) there is too much background that makes this picture
not comparable with the lower figure (p-STAT-3 Level I) showing a significant
positivity for STAT-3. This figure must be removed and replaced by a new one
with less background. Moreover, I see a strong positivity for STAT-1, but not for
STAT-3, for Level II mostly in the peripheral parenchyma of the slide. This is in
contrast with your results. How do you explain it and which cells are these?
According to the IHC studies presented, I can see a difference of detection in
favor of STAT-3 only for Level I but not for Level II and III, as is reported by the
authors.
2) Are only hepatocytes to express STAT-3? Did the authors make an Heppar-1
staining?
In a recent published brilliant study, Dokduang H et al. (J Hepatobil. Pancreat.
Sci. 2014 Jul 16: doi: 10.1002/jhbp.131. Epub ahead of print) analyzed the
expression of STATs proteins in human cholangiocarcinoma tissues.
Interestingly, the expression of STAT-3 was significantly associated with a
shorter survival of tumor patients supporting the theory of Kao JT et al. Moreover,
Dokduang et al. detected STATs protein mainly in the cytoplasm of the inflamed
bile duct and in bile duct cancer cells.
The authors must show more in detail and with better quality of IHC studies
STAT-3 expression profile and comment their results in the discussion section
also according to the study of Dokduang et al. Differences in the expression of
STAT-3 in two biologically and histologically different tumor entities, such as
HCC and CC, could open a new scenario in explaining the role of STAT-3/IL-6 at
the precancerous stage and possibly in identifying a new biological marker for
HCC.
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/s12876-015-0283-5 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:IL-6, through p-STAT3 rather than p-STAT1, activates
hepatocarcinogenesis and affects survival of hepatocellular carcinoma patients
Version:3Date:26 August 2014
Reviewer: Suguru Yamada
Reviewer's report:
1. Through the manuscript, the authors described all of the results including the
detailed statistical values. Therefore, it is a little bit difficult to understand the
results. Perhaps, it is recommended that the important and significant values
should be chosen in the manuscript.
2. It is easy to understand the correlation among IL-6, IL-27 and TNF-# as
inflammatory cytokine, but VEGF should be another factor in carcinogenesis. The
detailed description regarding the reason why the authors chosen this VEGF in
this study.
3. In page 8, line 48, “anti- anti-HCV” is incorrect.
4. As for the immunostain scoring, please add the citation the author referred in
this study.
5. It is very difficult to understand why the authors used “6-month mortality” for
analysis. 6-month as a term is too short in regard to the clinics and survival, the
authors should perform another analysis for the survival.
6. Figure 5 should be removed.
Minor Essential Revisions
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 have nothing to declare in this paper.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0284-4 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Outcome of gastric emptying and gastrointestinal symptoms after liver
transplantation for hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis
Version:1Date:29 October 2014
Reviewer: Anders Rönnblom
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
The major problem with this report is the claim to describe a course in a group of
patients for at least 5 years, when only less than a third of those included from
the beginning are followed all the way. (Figure 2). This opposition is supported by
the fact that in the part of the study where drop outs are less prevalent (Figure 3),
the results are different.
This problem could easily be solved be restricting the analysis to the patients that
were followed during the whole study period.
The observation that there is a relation between the use of loperamide and the
Lower GI score (Tab 3) should no be interpretated as loperamide beeing the
cause of the intestinal symptoms, but the oppositeö.
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/s12876-015-0284-4 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Outcome of gastric emptying and gastrointestinal symptoms after liver
transplantation for hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis
Version:1Date:23 January 2015
Reviewer: Mehmet Haberal
Reviewer's report:
There are some limitations related with the manuscript entitled as ‘Outcome of
gastric emptying and gastrointestinal symptoms after liver transplantation for
hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis’’
1- When we evaluate the ‘’ T50’’ measurements seperately before and after
scintigraphic software differences is there any difference between the results?
2- Although we do not expect a significant symptomatic amelioration after
transplantation and evaluation of symptoms is a subjective thing , the
comparision of symptoms in accordance different time periods will increase the
subjectivity of your comment.
3- I noticed that not all the patients responded the survey and it is possible that
patients with complaints are more prone to respond the survey.
4-On the other hand it is not clear how a person can get 4 and 6 points from
lower GI symptoms which consists of from three symptoms (192-193)
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/s12876-015-0282-6 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Genetic Polymorphisms of Nampt Related with the Susceptibility to
Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Version:3Date:28 December 2014
Reviewer: Lin Zhang
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1.In the abstract, the authors should include the 95%CI.
2.The investigators failed to describe how their chose these SNPs.
3.The authors did not provide pictures of the three SNPs PCR-RFLP result and
sequencing analysis. This problem should be addressed by submitting
representative pictures.
4.The potantial function of these SNPs should be adressed in 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.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0282-6 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Genetic Polymorphisms of Nampt Related with the Susceptibility to
Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Version:3Date:7 January 2015
Reviewer: Enrica Rumiato
Reviewer's report:
The authors described the impact of three selected genetic polymorphisms in
<italics>NAMPT<italics> gene on the risk to develop esophageal cancer
carcinoma, studying 405 ESCC patients and 405 matched controls. They found
that the rs61330082 polymorphism is associated with the risk to develop ESCC
and it could be also a risk factor in haplotype with the two other
<italics>NAMPT<italics> variants.
The aim of the study is original, however, there are several major limitations.
Major revisions
English needs a deep revision (tenses, sentence structure, acronyms,
grammatical errors, etc.). It is unpleasant to read and difficult to judge the
scientific content of the manuscript in this form.
Furthermore:
1. In the Abstract there are several discrepancies between the Results and
Conclusion as concern genotypes (lines 42 and 50). Many contradictions are
also present in the text. The authors should be consistent throughout their article.
2. The gene <italics>NAMPT<italics> is cited as “Nampt” all over the manuscript
and in the Title. The authors should follow the Human Genome Organization
Gene Nomenclature (capital/italics for genes and only capital for proteins).
3. The Discussion must be improved and better structured, and the authors
should also clearly state the limitations of their work.
Minor revisions
1.The study is technically sound: there are more recent methods than the
RFLP-PCR. A validation set is desirable.
2.The authors should also include a correction for multiple tests.
3. All the percent values should be approximated in the same way (in the
Abstract, Tables and text).
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/s12876-015-0282-6 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Genetic Polymorphisms of Nampt Related with the Susceptibility to
Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Version:5Date:22 February 2015
Reviewer: Lin Zhang
Reviewer's report:
acceptable
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/s12876-015-0282-6 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Genetic Polymorphisms of Nampt Related with the Susceptibility to
Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Version:5Date:19 February 2015
Reviewer: Enrica Rumiato
Reviewer's report:
Now, although some spelling and typographical errors still have to be corrected, I
think that the manuscript is acceptable for publication in BMC Gastroenterology.
Reviewer’s minor corrections:
In general, check and add missing spaces in the text and in the Tables (i.e.
missing spaces in the Results section of the Abstract).
Then,
Page 2, lane 60, put the word “over” before “the world” in the first paragraph of
Background.
Page 4, in the section Genotyping correct “Hotstar” with “Hotstart” (lane 126).
Page 8, as suggestion, in the last paragraph I would put only “one novel
diagnostic indicator”, since the only important SNP seems to be the rs61330082
(line 241).
Page 9, add an interline space between the first and second references.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0275-5 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Mast Cell Regulation of Na-Glutamine Co-Transporters B0AT1 in Villus and
SN2 in Crypt Cells during Chronic Intestinal Inflammation.
Version:2Date:5 December 2014
Reviewer: Pradeep Dudeja
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript presents novel data pertaining to the role of mast cells in
mediating differential regulation of intestinal epithelial Na-glutamine transporters
in villus and crypt regions of the inflamed intestine. The studies in general are
straight-forward, the analysis and interpretation of the data is reasonable.
Authors need to address the following concerns to strengthen the manuscript.
1. It is mentioned at many places that enterocyte hexosaminidase was measured
as an index of mast cell degranulation. Mast cell hexosaminidase release
parallels degranulation. Authors need to elaborate on this aspect as it is
misleading the way it is described.
2. Since the results mainly depend upon the use of ketotifen, did authors image
the intestine to visualize mast cell degranulation and its stabilization with
ketotifen treatment?
3. Discussion should include some aspects of as to how mast cell activation may
have mediated these alterations in villus and crypt cell Na-glutamine transporter
kinetic parameters. Also, there are alterations seen in Na/K ATPase as well,
along with changes in BBM enzyme kinetic parameters, it should be discussed
as to which aspect is more critical for the final outcome.
4. The results in Figure 6 are mainly negative results and can hence be
described in the text and figure deleted. Instead, it would be better to include the
tables in the normal format of the article rather than in supplemental info.
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 am applying for a faculty position at this institution
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0277-3 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in patients with suspected
appendicitis: a systematic review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled
trials
Version:2Date:28 January 2015
Reviewer: Gian Luca Baiocchi
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions
I compliment with the Authors for the very good work they did from a
methodological point of view. One only remark: why cosmetc results were not
considered in the outcome?
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/s12876-015-0277-3 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in patients with suspected
appendicitis: a systematic review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled
trials
Version:2Date:17 February 2015
Reviewer: Nereo Vettoretto
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary revisions: in discussion the authors cite different approaches to the
treatment of acute appendicitis and the references 21,22 are intended to
compare single incision laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) vs conventional three
port LA. this should be mentioned more specifically in the text and I would also
introduce the conservative antibiotic therapy as an alternative (cit. Di Saverio S,
Sibilio A, Giorgini E, Biscardi A, Villani S, Coccolini F, Smerieri N, Pisano M,
Ansaloni L, Sartelli M, Catena F, Tugnoli G. The NOTA Study (Non Operative
Treatment for Acute Appendicitis): prospective study on the efficacy and safety of
antibiotics (amoxicillin and clavulanic acid) for treating patients with right lower
quadrant abdominal pain and long-term follow-up of conservatively treated
suspected appendicitis. Ann Surg. 2014 Jul;260(1):109-17.).
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/s12876-015-0273-7 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Difficult colonoscopy score identifies the difficult patients undergoing
unsedated colonoscopy
Version:4Date:5 January 2015
Reviewer: Zoltan Szepes
Reviewer's report:
Strength of the article: prospective study, high number of population, identify
some relevant factors for difficult colonoscopy before the procedure, first time
use of sleep quality factor.
Weakness of the article, Minor Essential Revision:
1. It is not a scoring system, only splitting the population into two group (high risk
and low risk group)
2. Was there any complication of colonoscopy in the investigated population?
3. Is there any potential impact of CO2 insufflation of DCS?
4. Was there any difference between the two DCS group in the bowel preparation
score?
5. There was no influence of previous abdominal or pelvic surgery on DCS. How
the investigated population were the types of surgeries and the diverticulosis,
history of recurrent diverticulitis?
6. Which of the identified 4 independent predictors of prolonged intubation time
had more influenced on DCS?
7. The endoscopic skill is more important than practice and previous number of
examination.
In the senior and junior group was there any significant difference between the
individual investigators regarding the intubation time? What was the statistical
dispersion?
8. What is the main clinical recommendation to identify DCS >1 group? (choice of
sedation or senior investigator e.t.c)
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/s12876-015-0271-9 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-like disease in a case of a 33-year old
man with glycogenosis 1b
Version:2Date:3 February 2015
Reviewer: Heyson Chan
Reviewer's report:
The authors described a rare case of IBD-like condition in GSD type 1b which is
of interest to the field of IBD. Of particular note, they describe such case in an
adult, in contrast to the mostly reported case in pediatric population. This case
also differs from previously reported cases as the intestinal symptoms of this
case did not respond to G-CSF treatment. The authors have provided reasonable
review and explanations to the possible reasons contributing to failure of G-CSF
treatment in this case.
Several grammatical mistakes were spotted. It is advisable for the authors to
review the written English before publishing. The mistakes spotted were
summarized in the minor essential revisions section.
Overall, the authors have described an interesting case with reasonable review
of available literature. I recommend accepting the manuscript after the minor
essential revisions.
Minor Essential Revisions
- line 25: replace glycogenosis - change to GSD
- line 32, line 58, line 62, line 77: use "transverse colon" instead of "transversing
colon"
- line 48: please spell out "inflammatory bowel disease" when "IBD" first appear
in the main text
- line 55, 56: move "pancytopenia may occur with GSD 1b" to line 47 to make it
follow other described characteristics of the disease
- line 66: the type of "TNF-alpha" cannot be showed up - consider spelling it out
or reinsert the "alpha" symbol
- The "conclusion" part is too long. I suppose this is "Discussion" part. Please add
a few sentences to the "conclusion" part instead
- line 85: we describe "a" (instead of "the") case....
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:
No to all of the above
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0271-9 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-like disease in a case of a 33-year old
man with glycogenosis 1b
Version:2Date:13 February 2015
Reviewer: Shanthi Palaniappan
Reviewer's report:
Overall the case report is interesting and this is probably the oldest patient with
glycogenosis presenting with IBD like disease reported . On most parts it is well
written - some corrections as given below.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. The Back ground and Case presentation should be clearly separated and not
merged together. Also, there should be a heading with discussion and a small
paragraph on conclusion ( now the whole discussion and conclusion is merged
together)
2. In the background the average age at presentation of IBD like disease should
be mentioned and therefore emphasis should be made that this case reports an
older patient
3. Case Presentation - history needs to be a bit more detailed particularly
mentioning the duration of symptoms, any family history of IBD , clinical
examination findings (any evidence of perioral disease / perianal disease etc and
general examination - growth retardation, hepatosplenomagly etc
4. what was the neutrophil count? ( only leukopenia mentioned). Inflammatory
markers on presentation - ESR / CRP?
5. Discussion - should emphasise the older age and possible causes why there
was a delayed presentation in age ( is it because this patients has been on
continuous GCSF and therefore neutrophil count has been maintained higher ? )
6. For Figures - Imaging and endoscopy mixed up
suggest 1A / 1B - CT, 1C - US bowel, 1D/ E - endoscopy, 1F - histology
7. Line 104-107 - grammar correction
Discretionary Revisions:
1. Discussion - other theories postulated on the causes of IBD like disease in
glycogenosis ( and not just chronic infection of gut due to neutropenia)
2. Line 45 - protein level - there is a ? in the brackets - pls check on this
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/s12876-015-0270-x (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic laparoscopy for assessing resectability in
pancreatic and periampullary cancer
Version:1Date:5 November 2014
Reviewer: Rakesh Aggarwal
Reviewer's report:
The model and assumptions are not described well. Also, I have an issue with
the basic model (please see the uploaded file). That small discrepancy, if true,
could change the results of this study, in which the gain in QALY per patient was
as small as 0.009 years (<4 days), could change the results drastically. I am also
possibly not the best person to review this person since I am not a surgeon and
hence am not well placed to understand whether the assumptions are valid or
not.
Level of interest An article of importance in its field
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/s12876-015-0270-x (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic laparoscopy for assessing resectability in
pancreatic and periampullary cancer
Version:1Date:9 September 2014
Reviewer: Shailesh Shrikhande
Reviewer's report:
Well done study. However the study is worth it only if we have high level
evidence to support "staging laparoscopy" as an indispensible procedure in this
era of high quality imaging. I am not sure whether pancreatic head cancer /
periampullary cancers should be considered together while addressing this
important question.
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/s12876-015-0270-x (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic laparoscopy for assessing resectability in
pancreatic and periampullary cancer
Version:2Date:7 December 2014
Reviewer: Shailesh Shrikhande
Reviewer's report:
The clear demarcation between pancreatic head cancer v/s other periampullary
tumors is still missing. More relevant data needs to be incorporated to convince
the reader that staging laparoscopy should be the standard of care even for
periampullary tumors.
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/s12876-015-0272-8 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Changes of the T cells-related cytokines on post-infectious irritable bowel
syndrome mouse model
Version:2Date:24 August 2014
Reviewer: Cesare Cremon
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting study assessing the role of immune mechanism in the
pathophysiology of post-infectious irritable bowel syndrome (PI-IBS). In mice
infected with Trichinella larvae, the authors assessed abdominal withdrawal
reflex (AWR) scores, intestinal histology, and the expression (at day 56
post-infection) of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines. The levels of IFN-# and
IL-17 were significantly increased in the duodenum and ileum, while those of
IL-10 were decreased in jejunum, ileum, and colon of PI-IBS vs. control group.
The study appears to be well designed and conducted, and the results are clearly
reported. The discussion is consistent with the results. However, English
language is sometimes poor and needs consistent revision. All the sections
should be thoroughly revised since some mistakes may have occurred.
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/s12876-015-0272-8 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Changes of the T cells-related cytokines on post-infectious irritable bowel
syndrome mouse model
Version:2Date:21 December 2014
Reviewer: Magdy El-Salhy
Reviewer's report:
The study represent an experimental animal model to study post-infectious
changes in cytokines produced by T-cells. The study is interesting, well planed
and conducted. It is well written, but I am doubtful if the results would be of any
relevance to patients with post-infectious IBS.
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/s12876-015-0272-8 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Changes of the T cells-related cytokines on post-infectious irritable bowel
syndrome mouse model
Version:2Date:27 December 2014
Reviewer: patrick A hughes
Reviewer's report:
The authors investigated whether acute inflammation induced by Trichinella has
long term implications on immune and nerve function after the infection has
cleared. The results show that there is an increase in Th1 type cytokines (but not
IL-1b) and a decrease in IL-10 in regional segments of the small intestine but not
the colon, and there is an increase response to balloon distension in
post-infected mice but compared to healthy mice. This work is potentially very
interesting, but suffers from several major issues:
Major Revisions:
1: Trich. spiralis infection is recognised as causing a mainly TH2 type response
from the immune system. The interesting findings here indicate this may switch
to a TH1 type response after clearance. While the authors show that histology is
cleared, these findings would be much stronger if TH1 and Th2 type cytokines
were evaluated during infection to provide an indication of the immune phenotype
of the infection.
2: Previous work investigating Trich. spiralis infection was not adequately
discussed in the introduction or the discussion.
3: T cells were not specifically investigated as part of this study, and other
immune cell types are capable of secreting cytokines. Therefore the title gives
the wrong impression and needs to be changed.
4: Histology is presented as evidence of inflammation, but individual regions of
the small intestine and colon were not scored so there is no indication of the
severity of the inflammation caused.
5: AWR scores were altered during low / mid pressures, but did not significantly
differ from healthy mice at high pressures. This indicates low/medium threshold
nerves but not high threshold nerves are altered, but this is not discussed
adequately.
6: The standard of English needs improvement and proof reading.
There are no minor essential revisions or discresionary revisions.
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:
None
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0272-8 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Changes of cytokines in a mouse model of post-infectious irritable bowel
syndrome
Version:5Date:31 January 2015
Reviewer: Cesare Cremon
Reviewer's report:
Also in this version, English language is sometimes poor and needs consistent
revision. All the sections should be thoroughly revised since some mistakes may
have occurred.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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/s12876-015-0272-8 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Changes of cytokines in a mouse model of post-infectious irritable bowel
syndrome
Version:5Date:3 February 2015
Reviewer: patrick A hughes
Reviewer's report:
The authors have responded adequately to comments and added more detail to
the text. No extra results have been included. However the standard of English
remains poor, and further proof-reading should be performed. (E.g. title should
be "changes in cytokines in......" ..not "Changes of cytokines in ........").
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/s12876-015-0268-4 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Excretion of urinary histamine and N-tele methylhistamine in
gastrointestinal food allergy
Version:2Date:12 October 2014
Reviewer: Yuichi Adachi
Reviewer's report:
The authors evaluated urine histamine and methyl histamine levels in patients
with gastrointestinal food allergy and found urine methyl histamine could be a
marker for patients whose symptoms associated with over-excretion of histamine
including gastrointestinal food allergy. Although these findings seem
straightforward, there are still several points to be cleared.
Major Compulsory Revisions
First of all, the authors classified gastrointestinal food allergy into 4 subtypes
according to the Coombs’ criteria. It is well known that histamine plays a main
role in type 1 allergy, but not involved in the mechanisms of type 3 and 4 allergy.
The data which compared urine histamine excretion levels between type 1 and
other types should be shown. Next, it is not clear what is the not-restricted food.
These patients must have been told the results of the previously performed food
challenge test. It is natural that the patients with food allergy avoid the offending
food(s), even when they are told that it is OK to eat any foods. It should be
shown what kinds of food the patients had during the non-restricted food intake
period. Food challenge test would be more straightforward.
Minor Essential Revisions
The authors mentioned that only samples with pH less than 3 were used for
analysis. It should be shown that how many samples were excluded for this
reason and that how many samples were below the measurable limit. How did
the authors calculate the histamine and methylhistamine levels in two samples in
each condition?
The reason why the symptom scores did not related with histamine levels could
be explain by the fact that this study was open-labeled.
Typo: “fluor” could be “flour” in Table 1. “Seborrheic dermatitis” could be better
than “milk crust” in the medical journal.
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/s12876-015-0268-4 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Excretion of urinary histamine and N-tele methylhistamine in
gastrointestinal food allergy
Version:2Date:29 October 2014
Reviewer: Ivy Shiue
Reviewer's report:
This study seems to attempt to study the relationship of urinary histamine and
N-tele methylhistamine and food allergy.
1) Title: Please be more specific. The current working title is only very general.
2) Abstract: There was no study aimed stated and no study design mentioned. Is
it a case control study? A clinical trial? A case report?
3) Introduction: It's well-written.
4) Methods: Study design is unclear. Please explain in details. How are csaes
and controls identified and categorised? Any matching criteria? Study sample
selection is unclear. Please describe clearly in details. A diagram might be
helpful. Patient characteristics should be reported in Results but not in Methods.
No ethics approval seemed to be reported clearly.
5) Results: There should be a table describing and comparing individual
characteristics between "cases" and "controls". Did the authors consider other
statistical modeling such as regression models?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
None
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0268-4 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Excretion of urinary histamine and N-tele methylhistamine in
gastrointestinal food allergy
Version:3Date:25 December 2014
Reviewer: Yuichi Adachi
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions
Just a minor concern about the graphs of Fig 2 and 3. It might be better to use a
box graph to express median +/- 25 to 75% interquartile range.
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/s12876-015-0268-4 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Excretion of urinary histamine and N-tele methylhistamine in
gastrointestinal food allergy
Version:3Date:3 January 2015
Reviewer: Ivy Shiue
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the revision that has been improved its clarity a bit. However, there
are still a few unclear description and statements. Please find them below and
revise accordingly.
1) Introduction: In the first sentence, those clinical reactions are "complications"
or "symptoms" but not "diagnostic problems (this is about diagnostic tools or
skills)". It is also unclear whether the 56 patients were in the current study, in
DBPCFC or other studies (citation would be needed). It does not make sense to
only select some individuals to undergo the testing when it's needed to test food
allergy. Is there any other alternative? If yes, how do they compare with each
other?
2) Method: Suggest the authors using a few subheadings to guide the reading,
such as "study design and study catchment", "case ascertainment", "control
selection", "measurements", "statistical analysis", "ethics approval" and "funding
source". Also suggest using a diagram to illustrate how cases and controls were
recruited and selected including the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The
numbers of cases and controls in the case group and controls are unclear. It's
also confusing in the tables. Who were in the case group? Who were in the
control group? Patients? Healthy people? Figure 1 does not correspond to tables
in terms of number of patients and controls. There should be separate diagrams
for selecting patients and controls.
3) Results: Please clarify tables and figures. Suggest Table 1 - demographics
and clinical characteristics of patients and controls or by case and control groups,
Table 2 - IgE and non-IgE initiated allergic reactions of patients, Table 3 -
associations of diets and what? only in control group? What is to be compared?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
None.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0269-3 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Deficiency of iNOS-derived NO accelerates lipid accumulation-independent
liver fibrosis in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis mouse model
Version:3Date:23 December 2014
Reviewer: Manlio Vinciguerra
Reviewer's report:
All my concerns have been addressed.
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/s12876-015-0269-3 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Deficiency of iNOS-derived NO accelerates lipid accumulation-independent
liver fibrosis in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis mouse model
Version:3Date:23 December 2014
Reviewer: Mariana Machado
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed my comments with extended discussion and with
the additional experiment I asked, namely the double staining for F4/80 and
desmin with NFkB which helped elucidate which cell types expressed the latter.
I think the overall manuscript improved and it is now suitable for publication.
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/s12876-015-0267-5 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence and Risk Factors of Asymptomatic Colorectal Diverticulosis in
Taiwan
Version:2Date:21 January 2015
Reviewer: RAKESH Kalapala
Reviewer's report:
No major or minor compulsory revisions
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.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0267-5 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence and Risk Factors of Asymptomatic Colorectal Diverticulosis in
Taiwan
Version:2Date:2 February 2015
Reviewer: Hrushikesh Chaudhari
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions -
1. Alcohol use should be in grams / day for better stratification and comparability
2. Duration of NSAID use not mentioned
3. Patients population can be divided between Urban and rural
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/s12876-015-0259-5 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Sofosbuvir and ribavirin before liver re-transplantation for graft failure due to
recurrent hepatitis C : a case report
Version:2Date:12 January 2015
Reviewer: Shahid Malik
Reviewer's report:
none
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0259-5 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Sofosbuvir and ribavirin before liver re-transplantation for graft failure due to
recurrent hepatitis C : a case report
Version:2Date:30 January 2015
Reviewer: Linda Law
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Line 60 should be referenced
2. Line 128 perspectives should be changed to "outcomes"
Discretionary Revisions
3. In the case presentation, can add a comment whethere there was any difficulty
with rejection of the first allograft.
4. In case presentation, state clearly total number of weeks that patient was on
SOF, instead of referencing table.
5. While patient was on treatment with SOF, were there any liver biopsies
performed? Was there any concern for rejection while on treatment that could
explain further decompensation of first graft?
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/s12876-015-0266-6 (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:23 June 2014
Reviewer: Sina Vatandoust
Reviewer's report:
General comments:
1. Previous studies have looked at the same question in the past (Rossi L 2013
and Hurwitz HI 2009) as well as clinical trials (as mentioned in Line 234-237);
which makes the current study important only to those with closely related
research interests and less interesting clinically.
2. This study is still interesting because of its large sample size; nevertheless the
role of some other mutations (BRAF, NRAS, PIK3CA, other-KRAS mutations)
have not been explored (although this has been alluded to by the authors as a
limitation of the study)
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Line 202-205:”similarly to PFS…” authors have mentioned that the risk was
higher whilst the confidence intervals overlap: the p value should be provided,
and if not significant it would be better to avoid the statement: “this risk was
higher in patients with KRAS mutation…” (Line 204).
2. Line 263-265: “…patients who received in the first line…” is the difference is
statistically significant?
3. Line 280-281: “this hazardous effect was stronger…” again this is not based
on a statistically significant difference
4. This study has looked at patients who have received chemotherapy and
therefore patients with poor performance and/or with co-morbidities who were not
chemotherapy candidates have all been excluded: this is a source of bias (and is
worth mentioning in the discussions) for this reason, any conclusions regarding
prognostic value of the variables should be made cautiously. The authors need to
clarify this in the discussion section
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Page 6 lines 101-109 : Naming all different ethics committees is unnecessary
2. Line 140: RECIST: which version?
2. Line 211-214: (“thus, the trend …”) it would be better to moved this to
discussion
3. Line 287: (“…KRAS mutation in colorectal cancer…”) it would be interesting if
the authors discussed any potential molecular explanations
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
No competing interset to declare.