JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-1 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Multilayered epithelium in a rat model and human Barrett's esophagus:
Expression patterns of transcription factors and differentiation markers
Version: 2Date:9 December 2007
Reviewer: kausilia K krishnadath
Reviewer's report:
Comments to this article were well taken en the manuscript has improved.
What next?: Accept without revision
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-7-46 (2007)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effect of apple cider vinegar on delayed gastric emptying in patients with
type 1 diabetes mellitus: a pilot study
Version: 4Date:20 November 2007
Reviewer: Per M Hellström
Reviewer's report:
General
MS has been upgraded to acceptable level. I persist in my wish of having some
kind of symtom evaluation. Otherwise, what would this mean for the patients.
English language is OK.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
None.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
None.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
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 have no competetive interest in the above MS.
Per Hellström
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-46 (2007)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effect of apple cider vinegar on delayed gastric emptying in patients with
type 1 diabetes mellitus: a pilot study
Version: 4Date:20 November 2007
Reviewer: Karen Jones
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors have revised the manuscript. Please find additional issues below
that require attention:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
1. Abstract; ln30: insert ‘investigator’ blinded crossover trial…; Discussion; p 11,
ln 234: add the statement ‘it was not randomised and the subjects were not
blinded.’
2. Methods; p 5: The authors state that a questionnaire was used to assess
symptoms. If this is the case, please provide the reference for this questionnaire.
3. Methods; p 5, line 100: Modifiy the sentence to include ‘a history of’ ie “Seven
of the subjects had a history of peripheral neuropathy…”
4. Methods; p7: Please clarify if the same ultrasound machine was used for the
paired studies. If not, please acknowledge this limitation in the manuscript ie
variations in measurement between the different machines may be present.
5. Background; p 3, ln 60-61: Please modify the sentence to read: ‘There is a
significant, albeit weak, relationship between gastric emptying of solids and the
presence of upper gastrointestinal symptoms; increased retention in the distal but
not proximal stomach is associated with increased gastrointestinal symptoms.’
The reference (13) is incorrect – should read: Jones KL, Horowitz M, Wishart JM,
Maddox AF, Harding P, Chatterton BE. Relationships between gastric emptying,
intragastric meal distribution and blood glucose concentrations in diabetes
mellitus. J Nucl Med 1995;36:2220-2228.
6. The authors state that they corrected the figure legend for Figure 1 – this has
not been done. Please modify to read: ‘clinically’’ diagnosed gastroparesis.
7. Methods, p8, ln174-175: modify the SPSS company details to read: ‘were
performed in SPSS for Windows (SPSS (Version 14.0, 2005); Chicago, IL, USA)’
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
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-7-44 (2007)

Reviewer's report
Title:Peroxisome Proliferators-Activated Alpha Agonist Treatment Improves
Hepatic Damage in Rats with Obstructive Jaundice: An Experimental Study
Version: 3Date:10 July 2007
Reviewer: Olivier Barbier
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has been greatly improved, and I have only minor comments:
- p7, 23rd paragraph: "betwenn BDL and BDL-vehicle"; the term control is
confusing with the sham controls
- pp 7,8,9,10: The term "PPARa induced or induction" is inappropriate. It would
be better to mention PPARa activated or activation. Induction relates to the
PPARa gene expression, which is not concern in the present study.
- p7: total in bold in the first paragraph of the result section.
- p8: It would have been interesting that the authors further discussed their
observation that "fenofibrate has regenerative effects".
- p9: "PPARa agonists activate..."
- p10: "obstructive jaundice affect..."
What next?: Accept after 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: 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-7-44 (2007)

Reviewer's report
Title:Peroxisome Proliferators-Activated Alpha Agonist Treatment Improves
Hepatic Damage in Rats with Obstructive Jaundice: An Experimental Study
Version: 3Date:16 July 2007
Reviewer: Girdhar Agarwal
Reviewer's report:
General
Referee’s Report on the paper “Prexisome Proliferators – Activated Alpha
Agnonist Treatment: Ameeliorates Hepatic Damage in Rats with Obstructive
Jaundice: An Experimental Study” by Mehmet Cindoruk and others
It seems that the paper has been already reviewed earlier. So I am concentrating
on Statistical Analysis and methodology part.
1. 1. “Statistics” section is ambiguous. They talk about post hoc test about
equality of variances. Actually this has to be performed before one can use
ANOVA. It is not clear in what context “Bonferroni’s test” and “Duncan’s test” are
being used.
These two tests are “multiple comparisons” tests. They don’t have to do anything
with “equality or unequality of variances” as quoted in this section.
2. Sample size is small in each group, ANOVA is to be used very carefully.
Actually the assumptions of ANOVA (normality and homogeneity of variances
among four groups) may not be valid here. In that case, non-parametric test
(Kruskal-Wallis test) would be more appropriate.
3. It is not clear whether ANOVA is performed on all four groups or three groups
(BDL groups).
4. Once hypothesis is rejected in ANOVA test, multiple comparison (pair wise
comparison ) have to be performed. This is not done here.
5. The most important pair wise comparison is among the two groups: (i) Sham
and (ii) BDL + ferofibrate. This is not clear whether this is done here. See remark
4 also.
6. In my view, ultimate aim of the study should be whether the subjects
recovered fully after treatment. This can be answered by pair wise comparison
mentioned above in remark 5. A scant comparison between the two groups show
that the two groups are significantly different, a fact contradicting the recovery of
rats.
7. The value p < 0.001 is O.K. But wherever, they have mentioned p < 0.05, the
exact p-value should be given to express the strength of “significance difference”.
The above remarks should be considered before any decision is taken on the
paper.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major 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.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-44 (2007)

Reviewer's report
Title:Peroxisome Proliferators-Activated Alpha Agonist Treatment Improves
Hepatic Damage in Rats with Obstructive Jaundice: An Experimental Study
Version: 5Date:29 August 2007
Reviewer: Girdhar Agarwal
Reviewer's report:
General
Referee’s Report on the paper “Prexisome Proliferators – Activated Alpha
Agnonist Treatment: Ameeliorates Hepatic Damage in Rats with Obstructive
Jaundice: An Experimental Study” by Mehmet Cindoruk and others
It looks like the authors have not understood the comments of my earlier review
completely.
1. They are supposed to be using Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test in the
revised version as suggested by me. But I do not think that they are using it in
the right context.
2. Kruskal-Wallis test is one-way ANOVA test and is used for comparing more
than
two groups (here four groups) simultaneously. This is not done here.
3. They are making pair-wise comparisons only. For pair-wise comparison
Kruskal-Wallis test is not required. Mann-Whitney test or Median test would be
appropriate test for pair-wise comparison.
4. The comment number seven in my earlier review is not incorporated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Accept after discretionary 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.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-43 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Outcome of index upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients presenting with dysphagia in a tertiary Title: 
care hospital-A 10 years review. 
 1  15 May 2007 Version: Date: 
 C. Mel Wilcox Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Your study evaluates endoscopic findings in patients with dysphagia. Your results mirror prior reports in 
suggesting the utility of upper endoscopy as a first line diagnostic strategy. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
1. Introduction. What does “surgical outpatient clinic” mean? 
2. Who did the interviewing for the database? Specifically, one would like to know that the definition of dysphagia, as it was recorded in the database, was similar amongst the investigators. We now recognize 
the importance of eosinophilic esophagitis as a cause of dysphagia and thus it’s peculiar that you found no 
cases. This may warrant comment. 
3. Please break out the types of esophageal cancer – squamous versus adeno. 
4. One would think there would be a correlation between heartburn as an additional symptom and presence 
of reflux as an endoscopic finding. 
5. Some have recommended barium study in patients with dysphagia as it may help delineate a motility disturbance which may not then warrant endoscopy or show a tight irregular stricture which then might 
warrant endoscopy using a different technique or with fluorscopy. Please comment. It was surprising that a 
large number of gastric cancers were identified. Perhaps these were the patients who had the additional 
symptoms. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-43 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Outcome of index upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients presenting with dysphagia in a tertiary Title: 
care hospital-A 10 years review. 
 1  7 June 2007 Version: Date: 
 Khean-Lee Goh Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Retrospective review of UGI endoscopies performed in a surgical unit over a period of time. 
The significance of the findings are of very low clincal interest. There is nothing exceptional in a basically 
convenience sort of study ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Reject because too small an advance to publish What next?: 
 An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a scientific/medical journal Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-43 (2007)

Reviewer's report
Title:Outcome of index upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients presenting
with dysphagia in a tertiary care hospital-A 10 years review.
Version: 2Date:8 October 2007
Reviewer: C. Mel Wilcox
Reviewer's report:
General
I re-reviewed the paper and the revisions of the author. I have several additional
queries which should be addressed:
1. You state in response to my prior query “The definition of dysphagia was
similar amongst the investigators”. This suggests that when your study was
started, there was a unified definition of dysphagia.
2. Several p values are given throughout the text yet there is no discussion of
what statistical methodologies were used.
3. There are several spelling mistakes throughout the manuscript.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
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-7-42 (2007)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prospective Acid Reflux Study of Iran (PARSI): Methodology and study
design
Version: 1Date:14 September 2007
Reviewer: Eamonn M M Quigley
Reviewer's report:
General
This is the protocol for a large and very important study of GERD in Iran; the
results will be of great interest but I am not convinced that, without some results,
this manuscript will be of much interest. There needs to be some results; for
example, differences in approach between Iran and elsewhere, issues related to
culture/language which influence terminology or have hampered the study and
led to changes would be of soem interest. Otherwise I would advise the authors
to wait until they have some data. Then they will have information and
manuscripts of great interest.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Reject because too small an advance to publish
Level of interest: An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a
scientific/medical journal
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-7-40 (2007)

Reviewer's report
Title:Meta-analyses of Fibrotest diagnostic value in chronic liver disease
Version: 2Date:29 July 2007
Reviewer: giada Sebastiani
Reviewer's report:
General
The manuscript is about two meta-analysis regarding performance and
diagnostic value of Fibrotest, that is the most studied non-invasive biomarker for
liver fibrosis. The paper is well written but some issues should be addressed
before publication.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
1) It may be very useful to know how many patients have been excluded
because of Fibrotest inefficiency (Gilbert's syndrome, haemolysis). Since data
are big, this can give an idea of Fibrotest failure in the various studies.
2) Individual data showed in Table 2 were available for 3282 cases, who then
constituted the integrated database. It should be specified how many of them
come from independent studies and from not independent/mixed studies.
3) in the discussion the authors state "one limitation of the study is that the
number of studies and patients in non HCV related diseases is smaller than
those in HCV". It should be clearly added that another limitation is that there are
very few independent studies in other chronic liver diseases (1 for HBV, 1 for
NAFLD and none for ALD).
4) In the discussion the authors state that a liver biopsy of 15mm has an AUROC
of 0.82. It should be added that, according to recent data from the pathologists,
gold standard liver biopsy should be bigger, and this might in fact lead to a higher
accuracy of liver biopsy (see Guido M, Rugge M. Liver biopsy sampling in
chronic viral hepatitis. Semin Liver Dis 2004; 24: 89-97). The sentence "the
median biopsy lenght in tertiary centers" must be justified with references,
otherwise is arbitrary.
5) the authors may want to comment in the discussion about the statistically
significant p-values reported in the Tables.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
1) reference [2] is written in a wrong position in the Background.
2) Table 1: Colletta study [27] was conducted on NALT and not PNALT cases.
This must be changed.
3) there are some typo errors in the references section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
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-7-40 (2007)

Reviewer's report
Title:Meta-analyses of Fibrotest diagnostic value in chronic liver disease
Version: 3Date:2 September 2007
Reviewer: giada Sebastiani
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
None
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
None
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
None
What next?: Accept without revision
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-40 (2007)

Reviewer's report
Title:Meta-analyses of Fibrotest diagnostic value in chronic liver disease
Version: 3Date:3 September 2007
Reviewer: Claudio Tiribelli
Reviewer's report:
I read the revised version and the answers to the reviewers. It is unclear to me
which is “which is which” i.e. the answers are not fully address the questions
raise, at least in my case. What I think is crucial is that the results are not
presented as the evidence that the Fibrotest is the solution of the assessment of
hepatic fibrosis but rather an additional, useful mean. Therefore the tone of the
discussion needs to be less dogmatic. Again, be sure to have the ms assessed
by an independent biostatistician. Give the points above I suggest accepting the
Ms.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-39 (2007)

Reviewer's report
Title:Adherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines in Canada
Version: 1Date:23 July 2007
Reviewer: Theodore Levin
Reviewer's report:
General
Very important information about predictors of screening exposure. I agree with
the interpretation that screening will not be successful if we rely on "opportunistic
screening" to occur during primary care physician visits.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
None.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
None.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
None.
What next?: Accept without 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:
No competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-38 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 "It doesn't do any harm, but patients feel better": a qualitative exploratory study on Title: 
gastroenterologists' perspectives on the role of antidepressants in inflammatory bowel disease 
 1  7 June 2007 Version: Date: 
 Bodil Ohlsson Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
I have some difficulties to understand why antidepressants would improve the disease activity in IBD. As this has been hypothesized, I would like to have some information in the discussion about the impact of antidepressant on inflammatory pararmeters. I would also like to know the hypothesis behind this 
uncommon question. There must be some strong indicators for that stress and/or depression may impair 
and trigger an exacerbation of IBD. Effects on cytokines? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
Page 2, abstract. Seventy-eigth, not seventy eight Page 10 line 13, 2 the after each other ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests´below.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-38 (2007)

Reviewer's report
Title:"It doesn't do any harm, but patients feel better": a qualitative exploratory
study on gastroenterologists' perspectives on the role of antidepressants in
inflammatory bowel disease
Version: 1Date:28 June 2007
Reviewer: Natasha Koloski
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
Methods - a little more detail on the gastroenterologists interviewed including
gender and were there any age effects. For example how did the older
gastroenterologists view antidepressant therapy in IBD.
Discussion should mention whether any future RCT would benefit from inclusion
of a psychiatrist in the treatment of antidepressant therapy versus the
gastroenterologists. Future trials will need to be clear about why the
Gastroenterologist is prescribing antidepressants for IBD itself or mood or pain
etc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Introduction could benefit from supporting references on the effectiveness of
antidepressants in IBS using RCT.
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
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 I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-38 (2007)

Reviewer's report
Title:"It doesn't do any harm, but patients feel better": a qualitative exploratory
study on gastroenterologists' perspectives on the role of antidepressants in
inflammatory bowel disease
Version: 2Date:23 August 2007
Reviewer: Bodil Ohlsson
Reviewer's report:
General
I find the manuscript interesting and now accept the manuscript after the revision
made.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Accept without 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. Bodil Ohlsson
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-38 (2007)

Reviewer's report
Title:"It doesn't do any harm, but patients feel better": a qualitative exploratory
study on gastroenterologists' perspectives on the role of antidepressants in
inflammatory bowel disease
Version: 2Date:23 August 2007
Reviewer: roger jones
Reviewer's report:
General
NO FURTHER AMENDMENTS REQUIRED
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Accept without 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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-37 (2007)

Reviewer's report
Title:Colonic epithelial ion transport is not affected in patients with diverticulosis
Version: 3Date:19 July 2007
Reviewer: James M Mullin
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors have done a good job of responding to comments and modifying
where appropriate. I congratulate them on their work. There are two points that
they still may want to further clarify.
Major Comments
I think that the clarification on page 4 needs to be made more clearly that the
biopsies were taken in normal appearing mucosa, not from the diverticuli per se.
This needs to be said exactly. In addition, is there evidence that any
cellular/molecular abnormalities associated with diverticuli would extend to
normal appearing tissue?
Minor Comments
I would still give the reader a fuller explanation of why changes in SCC
necessarily lead to changes in G. Does this mean that transcellular G is
necessarily increased when SCC increases? If this is true, state this in the
manuscript. Many readers would not make the connection.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Accept after discretionary revisions
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.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
JM Mullin
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-36 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Effect of oral lactulose on clinical and immunohistochemical parameters in patients with inflammatory Title: 
bowel disease: a prospective, randomised and controlled pilot study. 
 2  27 December 2006 Version: Date: 
 Ahmed Madisch Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The present pilot study is well conducted and an important hypothesis is generated, but, however, the final conclusion of the paper, that the present study showed an efficacy of lactulose for treatment of UC is too strong a statement and cannot be concluded from this paper. Thus, the conclusion has to be softened. 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
Moreover, some amendments and clarifications are needed as follows: 
• How many of the patients were referred to hospital due to symptoms, please specify. 
• How many patients received newly anti-inflammatory drugs or were the dose changed? This is very 
important, because more UC patients of the lactulose group received prednisolon > 5 mg and 5 ASA compared to the controls. Possibly, this is reason for the significant difference between the two groups and 
it is not effect of lactulose. This was underlined by the fact, that the distribution of the anti-inflammatory 
drugs of CD groups were similar and in these patients no effect of lactulose was observed. This possible bias should be discuss further in the paper. 
• A possible placebo effect should also be mentioned and discussed. 
• Do the authors have an idea, why the CDAI improved in the CD patients without receiving lactulose ? 
• ?-antitrypsin and pH (for compliance) were measured, but not mentioned in the result section. 
• The method part should be shortened, especially the histological and immunohistochemical evaluation. 
The results were inconsistent and interpretation was very difficult, because many of the observed effects 
were due to the anti-inflammatory drugs. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-36 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Effect of oral lactulose on clinical and immunohistochemical parameters in patients with inflammatory Title: 
bowel disease: a prospective, randomised and controlled pilot study. 
 2  16 May 2007 Version: Date: 
 Elias Zintzaras Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
I have major concerns about the study quality and statistical analysis/results. 
Some of my comments are the following: 
Although the authors reported a pilot study of 31 patients, based on the performed analysis actually we 
have a study of 14 patients with UC and a study of 17 CD. These numbers are really very small for testing 
clinical efficacy and claiming significance. 
The study was designed as a prospective randomized parallel study, however, the loss in follow-up was 
31/52=40%, a very large number questioning the quality of the study. 
Furthermore, it not clear how many of the 31 patients completed the 4 months follow-up. 
The authors do not report and do not compare disease severity for groups L and C at baseline. It is not valid 
to compare the groups when disease severity is different at baseline. 
Summary statistics, and comparisons, of age, gender, follow-up at baseline and at end of follow-up are not 
provided. 
There are too many comparisons and the chance of false positive results is quite high. 
The statistical analysis is not clear: how the difference between L and C is tested for IBDQ and other 
responses? What is the "multivariate tests"? How an adjustment was performed? What are the unadjusted and adjusted resulst? In addition, t-test is not valid for small samples. 
 Reject because scientifically unsound What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-36 (2007)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effect of oral lactulose on clinical and immunohistochemical parameters in
patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a pilot study.
Version: 3Date:24 July 2007
Reviewer: Ly-Mee Yu
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors have addressed all my comments. My only 2 comments of the
revised manuscript are:
1. The inappropriateness of the statistical comparison of baseline variables.
Many have argued that this does not have any practical value and potentially
misleading (see the CONSORT statement).
2. Standard deviation should be reported in Table 1 instead of SEM.
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
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:
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-36 (2007)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effect of oral lactulose on clinical and immunohistochemical parameters in
patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a pilot study.
Version: 3Date:28 July 2007
Reviewer: Elias Zintzaras
Reviewer's report:
I believe that the paper is suitable for publication now.
What next?: Accept without 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-7-35 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Cholecystectomy in Sweden 2000 - 2003: a nationwide study on procedures, patient characteristics, Title: 
and mortality 
 3  12 March 2007 Version: Date: 
 Baki Topal Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
* This manuscript is valuable for the Swedish society and might be considered as a national audit that might 
be discussed and compared with other Western-European countries. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
* The authors should discuss the shortcomings of the national registry database; e.g. the exact indications 
for cholecystectomy, date of operation is not recorded but the authors were able to determine postoperative 
LOS; how?, outpatient cholecystectomy is not registered, how accurate is the registry (is there any 
validation of the data, who is responsible for registration ...?). 
* Discussion; looks like a summary of the literature upon some aspect of gallstone disease, and does not 
cover the real study. The authors should discuss their findings in the light of their conclusions, including the 
shortcomings of the study and recommendations 
* Conclusions; based on data presented it is not possible to compare laparoscopy vs. open cholecystectomy 
since there is most probably a major selection bias with respect to approach (laparoscopy or open), 
surgeon, hospital, emergency vs. planned procedure etc ... Either the authors should discuss these matters 
or present only descriptive statistics. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
* The authors use “age” and “previous admissions” as parameters to define frailty of the patients. However, 
this population can be considered as relatively young: the age in the laparoscopy group is 49y vs. 59y in the 
open group. They should provide data on ‘severity of illness’, patient characteristics, and on the number of elderly patients (>80y). * Numbers in the abstract don’t correspond with these in the text (n patients 43042 or 43072). 
* Results section is written more like a collection of legends, and needs to be presented as a text 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Not appropriate for BMC Medicine: an article whose findings are important to those with Which journal?: 
closely related interests and more suited to BMC Gastroenterology 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-35 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Cholecystectomy in Sweden 2000 - 2003: a nationwide study on procedures, patient characteristics, Title: 
and mortality 
 3  18 April 2007 Version: Date: 
 Thomas P. Hüttl Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Rosenmüller et al. present a very interesting paper with well-elaborated data based on a National Swedish registry. The data gives us an excellent review about prevalence, morbidity and mortality of laparoscopic and 
conventional open cholecystectomy during a 4 year period in an European country. 
Especially data about readmission rate, interventions and deaths during readmission over a one year follow-up is a matter of particular interest for Surgeons, Gastroenterologists and General practicioners. I miss the differentiation in primary open treated patients and patients with conversion to open procedure. 
Probably there is a bias to the disadvantages of open cholecystectomy.This problem should be discussed in 
the paper. 
Alltogether the authors present a very nice paper suitable for publishing im BMC Medicine. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) see above 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Appropriate or potentially appropriate for BMC Medicine: an article of importance in its Which journal?: 
field 
 Accept for publication in BMC Medicine after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-35 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Cholecystectomy in Sweden 2000 - 2003: a nationwide study on procedures, patient characteristics, Title: 
and mortality 
 3  3 May 2007 Version: Date: 
 Alexandros Polychronidis Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
In this retrospective, nationwide study, the authors compared the characteristics and postoperative 
long-term mortality of patients undergoing either laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy. 
Patients undergoing open cholecystectomy were older, more likely to have acute disease presentation or cholelithiasis-associated complications, accompanying comorbidity, and repeated hospital admissions before surgery. It was also more likely to have concomitant interventions along with cholecystectomy. After 
surgery, patients undergoing open cholecystectomy had longer hospital stay and a higher probability of 
repeat admissions because of either biliary disease or cardiac and pulmonary comorbidity. Interestingly these patients had a higher mortality than the corresponding general population not only in the early postoperative period but also during the 9-month follow-up period for ages younger than 69 years. 
It is likely that the complications of cholelithiasis, the advanced age and the concomitant comorbid 
conditions have dictated the choice of open cholecystectomy instead of the laparoscopic procedure and 
these factors probably explain the findings of this study. Overall, the aim of this study is well defined, the methods are sufficient, the results are adequately 
presented and the discussion is in concordance with the major findings of the study. 
Although several of the findings in this study have been previously reported by other studies comparing 
laparoscopic cholecystectomy with the open procedure, the large scale and the multi-institutional nature of 
this study provide it with sufficient strength to be published in BMC medicine. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
A minor revision refers to the expression “…patients selected for these procedures.” (Introduction section, 
last paragraph, lines 1-2) which is misleading since there were no selection criteria set and should be 
replaced (for example: …patients undergoing either laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Appropriate or potentially appropriate for BMC Medicine: an article of importance in its Which journal?: 
field 
 Accept for publication in BMC Medicine after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-35 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Cholecystectomy in Sweden 2000 - 2003: a nationwide study on procedures, patient characteristics, Title: 
and mortality 
 5  17 June 2007 Version: Date: 
 Baki Topal Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Manuscript content is now improved thoroughly. Medical English writing can be improved. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
The authors state in their conclusion that further efforts to reduce surgical trauma in open biliary surgery are 
motivated, suggesting that only the surgical approach is responsible for the mortality. Although other 
variables too have been mentioned in the text, they should clearly include the importance of patient 
selection and potential bias in their conclusion. If only 'inpatient' cholecystectomies were included, data concercerning 'outpatient' procedures should be excluded. I assume the word 'inpatient' may be omitted throughout the text. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests