JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-70 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Increasing abdominal pressure with and without PEEP: Effects on
intra-peritoneal, intra-organ and intra-vascular pressures
Version: 3Date:9 March 2010
Reviewer: Franco Valenza
Reviewer's report:
“Dr Jakob and collaegues in their revised manuscript entitled “Increasing
abdominal pressure with and without PEEP: effects on intra-peritoneal,
intra-organ and intravascular pressures” have addressed most of this reviewer’s
criticisms. The manuscript is now much improved.
There still is some confusion to the reader on the main line of discussion the
author’s themselves use to interpret their data. In the objective of the abstract
they state: “The aim of … the study was to asses whether using additional PEEP
to increase abdominal pressure interferes with the accuracy of pressure
estimation at different measurement sites”. At the end of the introduction they
state: “We hypothesized that increased IAP decreases during PEEP release, and
that this effect is more pronounced in the upper abdomen and intra-vascularly”.
At the beginning of the discussion: “ The main finding of this study is that
changing PEEP between 0 and 10 …did not modify the pressure changes
induced by external abdominal pressure…….”.In they conclusion they state: “
….our data suggest tat external abdominal pressure induces similar pressure
changes intra peritoneally, and in urinary bladder, stomach and inferior vena
cava……..”
The author’s, according to this reviewer, need to point clearly in their objectives
and conclusions, the role of weight and PEEP on the different measurement
techniques. Under this light the role of absolute measurements and changes over
PEEP/IAP interaction levels need to be discussed, particularly given the now
mentioned clinical limitations of the investigation, possibly also better discussing
the role of higher and lower abdominal pressures.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-69 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Early ultrasonographic detection and assessment of the severity of Crohn's
disease recurrence after curative ileal resection
Version: 1Date:10 March 2010
Reviewer: Luisa Guidi
Reviewer's report:
The paper deals with a hot topic in Crohn's disease (CD) patient's follow up: the
early detection and assessment of post surgical recurrence, with emphasis to the
transmural extension of recurrent CD lesions.
The Authors employ a non invasive technique as SICUS with oral contrast. Their
method appears particularly useful in this setting, allowing the Authors to
describe a good correlation with the endoscopic score. The paper is very
interesting and adds new findings to the knowledge in the field. The study is well
designed and conducted and clearly described.
However, I have some questions regarding the study design. It is described as a
prospective follow up study in which 58 patients were enrolled at the time of
bowel resection. Successively the patients were submitted to a SICUS and a
colonoscopy at 6 months and 1 year and at 6-12 months thereafter.
1. Did the 58 patients experience a colonoscopy every 6-12 months after the first
follow up after surgery?
2. How long have been the patients followed? According to the statement in the
second paragraph of the RESULTS section, the longest follow up was 24
months, so how do the Authors explain the median interval from surgery and
evaluation reported in table 2 for each Rutgeerts score (33.3/36/59.6 months
respectively)?
3. How were selected the 111 pairs of SICUS and colonoscopy included in the
analysis?
4. How many patients had sequential evaluations included in the analysis? ( A
table of results per single study interval could probably be helpful)
5. In fig 2B the asterisk relative to the significant difference between score 4 and
score 1 (p<0.001) is missing.
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-10-69 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Ultrasonographic detection and assessment of the severity of Crohn's
disease recurrence after ileal resection
Version: 2Date:21 April 2010
Reviewer: Luisa Guidi
Reviewer's report:
I am satisfied with the revision done by the authors and with the answers to the
queries reported in the cover letter.
In my opinion, the paper is now suitable for publication.
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-10-69 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Ultrasonographic detection and assessment of the severity of Crohn's
disease recurrence after ileal resection
Version: 2Date:11 May 2010
Reviewer: Odd Helge Gilja
Reviewer's report:
My comments are that most of my questions have been adequately answered.
However, the authors are not fully entitled to call the changes "initial" in 18 pts
after 2 years!
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-68 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Proteomics analysis of serum protein profiling in pancreatic cancer patients
by DIGE: up-regulation of mannose-binding lectin 2 and myosin light chain
kinase 2
Version: 3Date:3 February 2010
Reviewer: Paula Meleady
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is much improved from the original version of the manuscript.
However a number of items need to be addressed before it is acceptable for
publication.
Minor essential revisions
Abstract
Line 5 – high amount should be ‘highly abundant’ and remove ‘the’ before
immuno-affinity
Line 16 – remove ‘numerous’, as the authors only identified 8 differentially
regulated proteins, you cannot say ‘numerous’ proteins were identified as
differentially regulated in their study.
Materials and Methods – Western blot
Clarify that immuno-depleted serum was used for western analysis – this is not
clear from the study. How much protein was loaded onto each gel? Were these
proteins detectable in non-depleted serum? Was this tried – please comment on
this.
Include company details for the b-actin antibody and clarify that it was used as a
‘loading control’ for western blots.
Results
Section on – ‘Up-expression of serum MBL2 and MLCK2 in pancreatic cancer’
Use different phrase to ‘up-expression’!
The authors need to be careful how they refer to the ‘Controls’. For example, in
lines 6/7 of this section, ‘… showed the western blot results of 16 pairs of the
pancreatic cancer sera and their controls ..’ These are not patient ‘matched’
cancer and control samples which are suggested by the way the sentence is
phrased. A similar example is in the Conclusions section where the following
phrase is used incorrectly ‘… and its cancer –free controls’ .
Discussion
Second paragraph – rewrite the first sentence – difficult to read and understand.
Third paragraph, line 10 – ‘antibodies’ and not ‘anti-bodies’!
Last paragraph – many grammatical errors – please recheck for accuracy
Figures and Tables
Remove Figure 1A – it is unnecessary and adds nothing to the manuscript
Legend for Figure 2 – what gel is represented? Is it a Cy2 gel containing the
pooled samples – this needs to be clear in the legend.
Table 2 - Accession no. is spelt incorrectly
Table 3 – Change ‘Cover rate’ to ‘Sequence coverage’
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-10-68 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Proteomics analysis of serum protein profiling in pancreatic cancer patients
by DIGE: up-regulation of mannose-binding lectin 2 and myosin light chain
kinase 2
Version: 3Date:31 March 2010
Reviewer: Yasuhiro Kuramitsu
Reviewer's report:
The authors have responded to the points is my review, including renewing of Fig
2. However, Fig1A is still not necessary. It is ugly and merely alibi of DIGE. If
they remove it, this article will be accepted for BMC Gastroenterology.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-67 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Validation of the BARD scoring system in Polish patients with nonalcoholic
fatty liver disease (NAFLD)
Version: 1Date:7 May 2010
Reviewer: Giovanni Tarantino
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Introduction
....NAFLD is now considered an early expression.... add the pertinent reference,
i.e., Tarantino G, Saldalamacchia G, Conca P, Arena A.
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: further expression of the metabolic syndrome.
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007 Mar;22(3):293-303
... the liver biopsy ....change the gold in the best available.
Aim
The study was implanted because.......Polish population is formed by a scarce
number of Africo-americans and the incidence of obesity is relatively low in
confront to the USA figures
Statistics
Expand the description of tools used to analyze data.
Results
Give chi square results of this statment......Diabetes was twice.......
Discussion
About limitations ...add a sentence about the fact that neo-bibrogenesis is
present also in FL quoting the pertinent reference, i.e., Tarantino G, Conca P,
Riccio A, Tarantino M, Di Minno MN, Chianese D, Pasanisi F, Contaldo F,
Scopacasa F, Capone D.Enhanced serum concentrations of transforming growth
factor-beta1 in simple fatty liver: is it really benign?
J Transl Med. 2008 Nov 27;6:72.
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:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-67 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Validation of the BARD scoring system in Polish patients with nonalcoholic
fatty liver disease (NAFLD)
Version: 1Date:18 May 2010
Reviewer: Stephen Harrison
Reviewer's report:
The authors have studied 104 Caucasians with NASH and validated the BARD
score for detecting advanced fibrosis. A similar ROC, OR and NPV was found to
the original manuscript the described and validated the BARD score. This is a
very good study that confirms the previous work in a different patient population.
No issues.
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-10-67 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Validation of the BARD scoring system in Polish patients with nonalcoholic
fatty liver disease (NAFLD)
Version: 2Date:17 June 2010
Reviewer: Giovanni Tarantino
Reviewer's report:
No recommendations
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:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-66 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Colon Capsule Endoscopy compared to Conventional Colonoscopy under
routine screening conditions
Version: 2Date:27 January 2010
Reviewer: James M Church
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
The results section is a problem. It is unclear. I would like to see, plainly put in a
table, the number, size, location and histology of polyps detected by both
techniques. I would like to see the adenoma detection rates
How did the authors handle lesions seen on capsule endoscopy but not on
colonoscopy? Did patients undergo repeat colonoscopy, by another endoscopist,
and did the lesions remain undetected?
Issues of comparative cost in terms of money and resources are not addressed. I
appraciate that this was not the point of the study but some useful comments
could be made.
You mention serrated adenomas but not sessile serrated polyps, notoriously
difficult to see on colonoscopy. Were there any and were any detected by the
capsule?
The prep results are unacceptable, for the camera and the colonoscopy. The
high rate of poor preps tends to invalidate the whole study.
The Bayesian analysis is of questionable significance in the absence of a true
gold standard.
The exclusion of polyps <5 mm diameter is unrealistic, as the authors have
pointed out. Taking a size for significance from irrelevant studies of virtual
colonoscopy tends to invalidate data and conclusions. Fortunately the authors
have also included all lesions.
The overall adeno0ma detection results are inferior to fecal DNA testing and
show that there is a lot of work to do. Can the authors analyse missed polyps and
see if there is a pattern of reasons why they were missed?
Minor Essential Revisions
The English language used in the manuscript is clumsy. It needs to be rewritten
by a native English speaker.
Discretionary 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 declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-66 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Colon Capsule Endoscopy compared to Conventional Colonoscopy under
routine screening conditions
Version: 2Date:28 January 2010
Reviewer: Andre Van Gossum
Reviewer's report:
The authors report the results of a study that compared colon capsule and optical
colonoscopy in a CRC screening population. They describe a low sensitivity for
colon capsule but a high negative predictive value. They also report a low rate of
complete excretion (64%) and a low percentage of good colon prep.
General remarks
- The number of patients included in this trial designed for a screening procedure
is extremely low.
- As it is mentioned by the authors, the excretion rate and the colon cleanliness
were low. This is probably due to the modification of the colon prep. That shows
the importance of the timing of the procedure.
- Why the authors did use a 3 point scale and not the 4 point as it has been
described ?
- Results : the authors report several findings that were detected on colon
capsule and not on colonoscopy. That could be also false negative of
colonoscopy. It is a pity that a second look colonoscopy was not designed at
least for patients with the so-called significant polyps. The results are interesting
but the design of the study was quite weak.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-66 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Colon Capsule Endoscopy compared to Conventional Colonoscopy under
routine screening conditions
Version: 3Date:11 March 2010
Reviewer: Andre Van Gossum
Reviewer's report:
The authors report their experience of using CCE as a new method for CRC
screening. They compared CEE to colonoscopy in 59 patients.
Remarks
Design : the authors changed several aspect compared to previously reported
data :
1. Significant polyp >5 mm instead of 6 mm.
2. Colonoscopy is performed on day 2 and not the same day.
3. They use a 3 point scale for colon cleanliness instead of a 4 point scale.
4. Timing of PEG ingestion is different.
Why did the authors select these changes ?
The rate of false positive for CCE is high (13/56). It is a pity that these patients
did not undergo a second leak endoscopy. Indeed, the possibility of false positive
CCE which are may be false negative for colonoscopy was already known
regarding previous studies.
What questions were asked to assess the acceptance ?
How do you explain that 30% "felt heavily restricted" during CCE ? It is not
commonly reported with SDB capsule.
In general, the number of patients enrolled in this study is very low to assess
CCE as a screening method.
They confirmed a low sensitivity.
Regarding the low number of patients, the use of the NPV is debatable.
In conclusion, this study is weak. The most interesting information concerns the
design of the preparation.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-66 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Colon Capsule Endoscopy compared to Conventional Colonoscopy under
routine screening conditions
Version: 3Date:9 June 2010
Reviewer: Hans Herfarth
Reviewer's report:
The authors report about the sensitivity of colon capsule endoscopy compared to
colonoscopy. The study has some weaknesses: small sample size, no second
look in patients with positive capsule findings and negative colonoscopy.
However overall the now revised manuscript adds to the growing body that colon
capsule endoscopy is not ready for prime time for screening purposes. The
authors point this out in their conclusion.
I have only minor changes. Instead of Figure 1 (colon capsule), I would include
the two tables of the supplementary material in the manuscript: table 1
summarizing the bowel and table 2 the definitions of the quality of the bowel
prep.
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-10-65 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Altered Expression of a Putative Progenitor Cell Marker DCAMKL1 in the
Gastric Mucosa in Regeneration, Metaplasia and Dysplasia
Version: 1Date:9 March 2010
Reviewer: Edi Levi
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer’s report.
Major Compulsory Revisions.
None.
Minor essential Revisions.
None.
Discretionary Revisions.
1. This is a very interesting article demonstrating DCAMKL1 as a potential
progenitor cell marker in the gastric epithelium. The authors have made several
injury models to demonstrate the alterations in the DCAMKL1 expressing
population and nicely demonstrated that the changes seen are compatible with a
progenitor cell candidate. This is a purely descriptive study heavily based on
serial color photos. As a pathologist, I appreciated the quality of the images but
my main concern with this article is the difficulty to keep up with the explanations.
Basically this is a purely visual demonstration of changes via
immunohistochemistry. I suggest that the authors make a table or diagram or
both to summarize the changes in addition to the color photos.
2. There are other candidate progenitor cell markers available such as LGR5,
ALDH1, CD133, CD166, CD44 that have been used to demonstrate the putative
progenitor/stem cells in other areas of the gastrointestinal tract. A comparative
analysis of at least one more marker would have strengthened the study.
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-10-65 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Altered Expression of a Putative Progenitor Cell Marker DCAMKL1 in the
Gastric Mucosa in Regeneration, Metaplasia and Dysplasia
Version: 1Date:10 March 2010
Reviewer: Jian Lin Ren
Reviewer's report:
1. Authors well characterized the normal distribution of DCAMKL1-expressing
cells in gastric mucosa using electron microscopy; showed the distribution of
other proliferating, foveolar, mucous neck, parietal and chief cells using the
common specific molecular markers by immunohistochemical staining.
2. This study showed that expression patterns of DCAMKL1 both in normal and
different pathological states using immunohistochemical analysis and concluded
that these cell are belongs to a progenitor cell population. These results are
interesting and valuable information concerning the new molecular marker of
progenitor cells in gastrointestinal mucosa. However, there is one major issue
that should be addressed.
3. Authors followed up the distributive changes of DCAMKL1 and PCNA
expressing cells in the mucosa at different time points after ethonal injury in
Figure 3, but it would be essential to show the correlated H&E staining images
and quantitatively analyze the DCAMKL1 and PCNA expressing cell numbers at
5min, 1h, 6h, 24h and 96h after injury compared with the normal condition.
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-65 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Altered expression of a putative progenitor cell marker DCAMKL1 in the rat
gastric mucosa in regeneration, metaplasia and dysplasia
Version: 2Date:13 May 2010
Reviewer: Jonathan Kaunitz
Reviewer's report:
The authors have resubmitted a manuscript addressing the localization of the
putative stem cell marker DCAMKL1 in normal rat stomach and in a variety of
gastric injury models. The authors have responded positively to the critiques by
generating new data and providing helpful schematic drawings explaining their
data.
I have a few additional comments:
Ut appears that Figs. 5-6 both depict the 3 week time point and have overlapping
data. Suggest merging the figures and reducing the 17 images shown to a
smaller number, avoiding duplication, and increasing clarity.
Why is the healing ulcer at the 2 week time point and the active ulcer at the 3
week point?
In Fig. 9, consider placing the serial sections in a single column.
Use "whereas' instead of "while" if you are meaning "while in contrast" or
suchlike. For example, on the top of p. 18, it appears that your findings are
different from those reported in ref. 13.
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 have met some of the co-authors at professional meetings. Otherwise, 'I declare
that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-64 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Gastric cancer is associated with NOS2 -954G/C polymorphism and
environmental factors in a Brazilian population
Version: 1Date:4 February 2010
Reviewer: Georgina L Hold
Reviewer's report:
Title: Gastric cancer is associated with NOS2 -954G/C polymorphism and
environmental
factors in a Brazilian population
Authors: Yvana Cristina Jorge, Márcia Cristina Duarte and Ana Elizabete Silva
In this interesting paper the authors correlate polymorphisms in NOS2 namely
608C/T and promoter polymorphisms -954G/C and -1173C/T, with gastric cancer
and chronic gastritis within a Southeast Brazilian case-control study comprising
474 individuals.
The findings show that carriage of the -954C allele is associated with increased
risk of gastric cancer but not chronic gastritis. The other 2 polymorphisms were
either not detected (-1173 T), or not a risk factor (608C/T) in this population.
Additional observations indicated that smoking and alcohol consumption were
also risk factors for gastric cancer and chronic gastritis in this population.
I have a series of points that I feel would improve the paper:
Major points:
1) There is little information presented to indicate the prevalence of these SNPs
in other studies/populations. Without this information it is difficult to put the study
findings into context.
2) Following on from point 1, and based on the discussion perhaps it would be
worth the authors looking at other Brazian populations to see how representative
these findings are. If this is not possible, an indication of their relevance should
be forthcoming.
3) I would like to see more extrapolation of the study findings within the context of
the published literature. For example, the authors discuss the fact that higher
expression of iNOS is observed when the -954C allele is present. Perhaps they
could extend these discussions to explain the physiological relevance of this.
4) The authors make tentative reference to the role of the -954C variant within
the context of innate immunity in malaria. It would perhaps be appropriate to
discuss further innate immunity within the context of gastric cancer.
Minor points
1) It would be useful if the authors could refer to the SNPs by their 'rs' number so
that it is easier for readers to locate the correct/documented genetic variants.
2) In the methods section, it would be more appropriate to define restriction
enzyme work in terms of units of activity as opposed to volume added as this
gives no indication of activity which is the basis on which the RFLP analyses are
successfully completed.
3) In Table 2 reduce the values to 2 decimal places to be consistent with thethe
text and also in the other tables.
4) Some minor presentational adjustments required.
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-10-64 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Gastric cancer is associated with NOS2 -954G/C polymorphism and
environmental factors in a Brazilian population
Version: 1Date:19 February 2010
Reviewer: Asahi Hishida
Reviewer's report:
The paper by Jorge YC et al. investigated the associations of the risk of gastric
cancer and chronic gastritis with the three representative polymorphisms in the
NOS2 gene together with smoking and alcohol drinking habits, and found that
NOS2 -954 G/C polymorphism as well as alcohol intake and tobacco smoking
was associated with gastric cancer risk.
This reviewer thinks that the results of this study are sound, and worth to be
published in BMC Gastroenterology after some revisions as described below.
1. As you may know, H. pylori-induced gastric cancers occur through multi-step
process referred to as Correa’s cascade. The authors should consider that it
would be better if they evaluate the risk of each step of gastric carcinogenesis,
i.e., H. pylori infection, gastric atrophy formation and gastric carcinogenesis in a
stepwise-manner, as previously described (Hamajima N, et al., Cancer Sci 2006;
97: 1129-38).
2. In the Methods section, they claimed that the OR’s were calculated using a
dominant model. In contrast to this, the results in Table 2 seem to calculate the
OR for those with homozygous major allele relative to those with heterozygous or
homozygous minor allele. This reviewer thinks that it would be more popular to
calculate the OR for those with heterozygous or homozygous minor compared
with homozygous minor, isn’t it?
3. As described in the Introduction, H. pylori infection is an established risk factor
for gastric carcinogenesis. In this study, however, H. pylori infection was tested
only in part of the gastric cancer cases and gastritis cases, not tested in controls.
This should be emphasized as a limitation in the Discussion section.
4. This reviewer as well as some part of the readers would be anxious to know
how many percent of H. pylori in your study subjects may have H. pylori virulence
factor cagA, and what type of cagA they might be.
5. In Table 3, the authors had better provide the number of subjects in each
category (age, gender, smoking, alcohol, and so on).
6. The NOS2 C/T (Ser608Leu) polymorphism at exon 16 should not be described
as 608C/T, because 608 is a codon number, not a nucleotide position. The
authors should also provide the rs number of dbSNP for each SNP for the easy
reference of the readers.
7. In Table 2, ‘95%IC’ should be replaced with ‘95%CI’. Also, it would be better if
they provide the spell-outs in the legends, as well as for what factors they
adjusted in calculating ORs in the footnotes.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-10-64 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Gastric cancer is associated with NOS2 -954G/C polymorphism and
environmental factors in a Brazilian population
Version: 2Date:25 March 2010
Reviewer: Georgina L Hold
Reviewer's report:
I have no further issues with this manuscript
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-10-64 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Gastric cancer is associated with NOS2 -954G/C polymorphism and
environmental factors in a Brazilian population
Version: 2Date:2 April 2010
Reviewer: Asahi Hishida
Reviewer's report:
While the authors (Jorge YC et al.) revised their manuscript according to the
reviewers’ comments, however, this reviewer thinks that the following points
should be re-evaluated and then revised.
<Major Compulsory Revisions>
Again, the results in Table 2 seem to be the inverse. If the OR’s were calculated
using a dominant model, the crude OR of GA in subjects with GC+CC of NOS2
-954G/C polymorphism should be {(62+11)x115}/{(38+11)x77} = 2.2, much larger
than 0.67 (may be the inverse). The OR of GA for the C allele of the NOS2 -954
G/C polymorphism is calculated as (0.29x0.82) / (0.18x0.71) = 1.86, in the same
way. The authors should check these values carefully over again.
<Minor Essential Revisions>
1. (Page 3, paragraph 2) The steps leading to H. pylori-related gastric cancer
should be described more precisely, like as H. pylori infection, gastric atrophy
development, intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia, and carcinogenesis (also please
make reference to Correa P., CancerRes 1988; 48: 3554-60).
2. “p=0.00” seems odd and unclear, which should be replaced with “p<0.01”.
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-10-64 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Gastric cancer is associated with NOS2 -954G/C polymorphism and
environmental factors in a Brazilian population
Version: 3Date:7 June 2010
Reviewer: Asahi Hishida
Reviewer's report:
The authors revised their manuscript according to the reviewers' comments.
The manuscript can be accepted in the current version.
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-10-62 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Helicobacter pylori in apparently healthy children aged 0-12 years in urban
Kampala, Uganda: a community-based cross sectional survey.
Version: 5Date:23 April 2010
Reviewer: Vincent Plagnol
Reviewer's report:
I am happy with the authors' reply. The one thing I would insist on for the table is
to show odds ratios as well as P-values. The authors disagree but this is in my
view an essential piece of information to assess properly the significance of the
findings. There is no harm in adding more data, and the authors can keep
everything that is already in the table. But P-values would, in my view, definitely
help.
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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-62 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Helicobacter pylori in apparently healthy children aged 0-12 years in urban
Kampala, Uganda: a community-based cross sectional survey.
Version: 5Date:26 April 2010
Reviewer: Dietrich Rothenbacher
Reviewer's report:
The authors should add a 95% CI also to the row "total" in Table 1. Otherwise all
my points had been adressed.
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.
Beside beeing a honorary member of the medical faculty of the University of
Heidelberg, Germany, I am a employee ofGlobal Clinical Epidemiology at
Novartis Pharma AG, Switzerland.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-62 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Helicobacter pylori in apparently healthy children aged 0-12 years in urban
Kampala, Uganda: a community-based cross sectional survey.
Version: 5Date:7 May 2010
Reviewer: Schalk W van der Merwe
Reviewer's report:
When I initially evaluated the manuscript my conclusions were:
1. The manuscript did not add any new information of the transmission of H.
pylori, risk factors associated with H.pylori infection in third world communities
2. The manuscript uses low resolution absence/presence methods which has
severe limitations when inferring transmission
3. I considered the manuscript to be better suited for publication in an
Epidemiology journal
Although it is a well conducted study, done under difficult circumstances and
after considerable improvements were made to the manuscript by the authors, it
does not change my initial fundamental conclusion: the manuscript adds no new
information in the field of Gastroenterology
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-61 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Role of tumor size in the pre-operative management of rectal cancer
patients
Version: 1Date:20 January 2010
Reviewer: Gaetano Magro
Reviewer's report:
The paper is potentially interesting and it has been well planned and illustrated.
However, I think it needs a major compulsory revision
Although rectal and colon carcinomas share common controversial pathological
issues, however, it is also true that rectal carcinoma poses exclusive issues,
owing to its peculiar anatomical location. Infact, apart from tumor hystotype and
pTN, pathologist should evaluate: i) gross evaluation of the total mesorectal
excision; ii) possible extension of tumor to the surgically created circumferential
(radial) margin; iii) possible extension to peritoneum, if tumor is localized in the
anterior wall of the rectum; iv) perirectal tumor deposits (TDs).
All these pathologic features are not optional, but routinely required by clinicians.
Why did not the authors evaluate all the above mentioned points?
Their inclusion in the clinicopathologic characteristics of rectal cancer patients
(Table 1,2)could greatly improve the quality of the paper.
The authors should provide a convincing explanation about this important
omission.
Pag. 11
When the authors use the acronym TEM should specify: transanal endoscopic
microsurgery
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-10-61 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Role of tumor size in the pre-operative management of rectal cancer
patients
Version: 1Date:12 February 2010
Reviewer: Hans-Joachim Schmoll
Reviewer's report:
This study reports on the value of preoperative tumor size in rectal cancer with
respect to pathological stage and final outcome in terms of survival. A large test
set has been generated from a retrospective analysis within one hospital, and a
small test set from another hospital. The data show that a cut off of 3.4 cm of
preop pathological stage is significantly predicting pathological stage after
surgery and survival. This information is interesting and even today where
modern MRI techniques can be used to identify possible lymphnode involvement.
Whether this knowledge is clinically relevant in terms of changing treatment
procedures is unclear since TME is done in all patients, and adjuvant
chemotherapy given in all pathological T3/ 4 or N+ patients as well. However, the
information is interesting. The paper is well written and contains most relevant
references.
Major:
The means to identify the preop and pre-treatment stage in both cohorts are not
described. Furthermore, which is more relevant, it is not given which patient had
preoperative radiation or chemoradiation. It can be assumed that a proportion of
locally advanced tumor patients had some preoperative treatment or some
postoperative as well. It is not clear which influence this treatment modalities
have had on relapse rate as well as on the cut off point and the relevance of 3.4
cm cut off.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-61 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Role of tumor size in the pre-operative management of rectal cancer
patients
Version: 2Date:9 March 2010
Reviewer: Gaetano Magro
Reviewer's report:
The paper does not need additional revision
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-10-61 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Role of tumor size in the pre-operative management of rectal cancer
patients
Version: 2Date:30 March 2010
Reviewer: Hans-Joachim Schmoll
Reviewer's report:
They made some changes which improved the manuscript. In principal, the study
is now more clear and understandable. This is an interesting hypothesis,
expressed in this analysis which deserves publication- however, without high
priority.
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interest to declare.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-60 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Immunoregulatory Actions of T cell PPARgamma at the Colonic Mucosa in
Mice with Experimental IBD
Version: 1Date:6 April 2010
Reviewer: Daniel Straus
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript presents potentially interesting new results on immunoregulatory
actions of T cell PPARgamma in DSS colitis. However, there are several points
that need to be addressed:
Major compulsory revisions:
1. Figure 1: In the text the authors state that “Differences between the groups
first appeared on day 4 of the challenge, where CD4cre mice had significantly
worsened disease activity and significantly greater weight loss (Figure 1A and
1B)." Contrary to this, in Figure 1A it seems that there is no significant difference
between CD4cre and wt at any time point. On day 4, CD4cre has a “b” and wild
type has an “ab”; this means that they are not significantly different. In Figure 1B
there was a delay in weight loss in wt mice, but weight loss on day 7 was not
significantly different for the two groups.
2. Figure 2: In panels E, F and G, how many fields from how many mice were
read at each time point?
Minor essential revisions:
3. Page 15: The authors seem a little confused about clinical trials conducted
with rosiglitazone. The most recent and definitive study is their ref. 4: this was not
an open label study, it was a double-blind, placebo controlled study.
Page 6 spell “Immunophenotyping”
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:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-60 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Immunoregulatory Actions of T cell PPARgamma at the Colonic Mucosa in
Mice with Experimental IBD
Version: 1Date:6 April 2010
Reviewer: Anje A te Velde
Reviewer's report:
This is an extensive study that investigates the role of PPAR # in T cells. A large
number of data of expression profiles after 7 days of DSS colitis result in different
conclusions. Some of the findings and interpretations raise questions:
The interpretation of the data in figure 1A and B is somewhat optimistic:
“Differences between the groups first appeared on day 4 of the
challenge, where CD4cre mice had a significantly worsened disease activity
index (DAI) and significantly greater body weight loss (Figure 1A and 1B)”.
I see a significant difference on day 4 of the DAI and on day 4 and 5 of the
bodyweight, that’s all.
“As anticipated from a model that initially targets epithelial cells and
macrophages, no histological differences were found
between WT and CD4cre mice on day 2”. Why is there a difference in foxp3 cells
on day 2 in the spleen?
Why is foxp3 used in blood and spleen and in MLN IL-10?
IL-10 is already low at t=0, increases at t=2 and decreases again at day 7 in the
MLN, what does this mean?
In the discussion it is mentioned that T cells are recruited at
later stages of disease (days 4-7) following the initial epithelial cell damage and
macrophage activation. Did you observe this? In figure 2 leukocyte infiltration is
scored, it will be of interest to demonstrate if this is a mononuclear or a
polymorphonuclear infiltrate or both.
In a paper of Melgar et al, Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol, 2005 they
indicate that involvement of the T cell reaction in the DSS model is in the later
stage of disease after day 7. The model as it is used is an acute model of colonic
inflammation.
In figure 6 there is almost no upregulation of the pro-inflammatory genes in the
WT mice. How does this match literature?
It would be interesting to discuss the differences found in DSS experiments with
deficiency of PPAR # in epithelial cells and macrophages as mentioned in the
introduction (actual findings). In the discussion there is no extra information on
this available. This would give more information on the cell specific nature of the
role of PPAR #.
The title of the paper: “Immunoregulatory Actions of T cell PPAR # at the Colonic
Mucosa in Mice with Experimental IBD” indicates that certain actions of the T
cells are studied. The gene expression induction is secondary to supposed
actions that are not directly studied.
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-10-60 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:The role of T cell PPARgamma in Mice with Experimental Inflammatory
Bowel Disease
Version: 2Date:5 May 2010
Reviewer: Daniel Straus
Reviewer's report:
The article is acceptable in its current revised form.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-60 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:The role of T cell PPARgamma in Mice with Experimental Inflammatory
Bowel Disease
Version: 2Date:12 May 2010
Reviewer: Anje A te Velde
Reviewer's report:
The authors have adequately addressed the issues raised.
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-10-59 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Acute Retroperitoneal Bleeding due to Inferior Mesenteric Artery Aneurysm
Version: 1Date:21 July 2009
Reviewer: Raffaele Pulli
Reviewer's report:
The authors describe a case of IMA aneurysm associated with occlusion of SMA
and celiac trunk. The unusual presentation (rupture) could be the strenght of their
paper. However the organization of the manuscript presents several
weaknesses. In background session there are only two rows for presenting the
case report.
On the contrary, in the description of the case there are citations and a brief
discussion that should have been in the background session, on the basis of the
rules of the Journal.
The surgical tecnique described do not add anithing to our knowledge in this
field.
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-10-59 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Acute Retroperitoneal Bleeding due to Inferior Mesenteric Artery Aneurysm
Version: 1Date:26 July 2009
Reviewer: Onur Goksel
Reviewer's report:
This case report presents a rare form of visceral aneurysms associated with SMA
and coeliac artery occlusive disease. English language, besides very occasional
and insignificant errors (e.g. hemostasis vs. hemostasia)is appropriately used
and the general format of the article is optimal. There are no major flaws
requiring revison; however, more emphasis on endovascular techniques in the
emergency settings is necessary in discussion for a major improvement of the
article.
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-10-59 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Acute Retroperitoneal Bleeding due to Inferior Mesenteric Artery Aneurysm
Version: 1Date:6 August 2009
Reviewer: Theodore H Teruya
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting manuscript describing a very rare problem.
Major compulsory revision
1. It is difficult to figure out what was done in the repair of the inferior mesenteric
artery aneurysm. I was able to figure it out with some review, however it should
be explained in detail so the reader can understand it easily. For example. 'The
aneurysm was excised. The normal proximal and distal ends of the inferior
mesenteric artery were then mobilized. The artery was then reconnected in an
end to end manner to re-establish flow.'
Minor Essential Revision
2. There are multiple spelling and grammatical errors in the manuscript. These
must be corrected before the manuscript can be accepted. Unfortunately there
are too many to mention.
3. The case presentation should say CT was performed in line 3. The size of the
retroperitoneal hematoma should be stated(not just saying that it was huge.)
4. Sentence should be 'This produces localized areas high arterial pressure in an
unadapted vessel that can lead to aneurysm formation and subsequently lead to
rupture. This was the case in our patient.'
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' below.