JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-35 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Measurement of the total antioxidant response using a novel automated method in subjects Title: 
with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis 
 7  24 August 2005 Version: Date: 
 Luis A. A Videla Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
Major compulsory revisions indicated in my report were introduced in the revised version of the work, 
satisfactorily. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
All minor essential revisions were carried out satisfactorily in the revised version of the paper. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Correlation coefficients and significance of correlations were added to the figures in the revised 
version. 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 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-5-35 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Measurement of the total antioxidant response using a novel automated method in subjects Title: 
with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis 
 7  29 August 2005 Version: Date: 
 Giulio Marchesini Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The study has improved much. It remains purely confirmatory, but the new method may help define the role of oxidative stress in NASH as well as in other clinical conditions. Here are a few additional suggestions to improve the manuscript further. 
Minor Essential Revisions 
1. Both in the abstract and in the discussion any conclusion stating that oxidative stress plays a role 
in the pathogenesis of NASH should be omitted. In a cross-sectional analysis, the association between the variables does not predict which comes first, and no pathogenic clue can be derived. 
The authors are invited to comment on association, not on pathogenesis. 
2. Histological data should be transferred into the method section. 3. Figures should be redrawn omitting half points in the x-axis. In a categorical system, only units 
should be presented. R should be changed into rs. 
4. The whole manuscript needs some editing for the English language (avoid to repeat Zone 3 
perisinusoidal/pericellular fibrosis in histology; No …. neither …. nor in the result section; etc..). 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 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-5-34 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Decreased Expression of Cytochrome P450 Protein in Non-Malignant Colonic Tissue of Title: 
Patients with Colonic Adenoma 
 1  28 July 2005 Version: Date: 
 james Hardwick Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Background is limited and should be expanded to include the reason for this study and the 
importance of P450 metabolism in chemotherpeutic treatment of colorectal cancer. 
Both the text and figure should be more clearly defined in regards to normal tissue of adenoma 
patients and normal colon tissue of disease free individuals. Figure 3 patient and control should be 
clarified as adenoma patient normal colon tissue vs normal colon tissue from disease free individual. 
Figure should include the level of actin or control protein for each western immunoblot. 
Should include a figure of RT-PCR analysis of P450 mRNA in adenoma, normal colon tissue from 
patient and disease free individual. Expand Figure 1 B or include a table with relative changes in mRNA in individual patients. 
Table 4 should include the relative level of mRNA to the different P450 not whether a amplified band 
is present or not. 
The discussion should also include information on the polymorphic expression of CYP gene in colon 
tissue and importance in drug metabolism. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 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-5-34 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Decreased Expression of Cytochrome P450 Protein in Non-Malignant Colonic Tissue of Title: 
Patients with Colonic Adenoma 
 2  4 October 2005 Version: Date: 
 james Hardwick Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
The authors should eliminate Fig 1A and label Fig 1B with the gene being detected by PCR. 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 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-5-33 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Familial clustering of Leiomyomatosis peritonealis disseminata: an unknown genetic Title: 
syndrome? 
 1  3 July 2005 Version: Date: 
 Stanley Robboy Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
Leiomyomatosis peritonealis disseminata (LPD) is a fascinating disease about which little is known. 
This is the first report describing the disease as a genetically inheritable disease, and also one of a 
few reports describing the disease in men. The report is concise, well written, and well documented. 
The following comments are all minor. 
Case history: 
1) Are the lesions estrogen and progestin receptor positive? Is this information known? If not, would 
it be feasible to have receptor studies done using conventional immunohistochemical techniques? 
Were any other immunohistochemical studies performed, such as smooth muscle actin? 2) The lesions histology should also be documented with a good photomicrograph. 
Figure 1: Use only the best of the four photographs. Please crop the single photograph and 
demarcate the leiomyoma, possibly with an arrow. 
Figure 2: Much of the figure is wasted space. It is suggested that the central core of lesions be kept, 
and even possibly enlarged, while deleting the rest, which is most of the picture. Itch is misspelled in 
the legend (misspelled as "icht"). 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field Level of interest: 
 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-5-33 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Familial clustering of Leiomyomatosis peritonealis disseminata: an unknown genetic Title: 
syndrome? 
 1  31 July 2005 Version: Date: 
 Yao-Yuan S Hsieh Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
1.In general, this manuscript is a rare and interesting report. However, the major defect for this 
manuscript is that authors only demonstrated the family pedigree for LPD. The related molecular 
survey is scanty, which decrease its acceptation scale. Therefore, I strongly suggest that the authors 
should cooperate with molecular biologist and perform some related surveys, including the genetic 
survey and biochemical examination, which will definitely increase its publishing values. 
2.The correlation between LPD and uterine leiomyoma should be addressed. 
3.The mechanism about the association of LPD with Raynaud´s syndrome and Prurigo nodularis 
should be clarified. 
4.The correlation between LPD and estrogen level or estrogen-related gene is obscure, which 
require further survey. 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-33 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Familial clustering of Leiomyomatosis peritonealis disseminata: an unknown genetic Title: 
syndrome? 
 1  10 August 2005 Version: Date: 
 Frederic Amant Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
he article is well written and concerns a subject where little studies previously have been published. Pedigree studies in uterine leiomyomatosis are nearly non existing. I would therefore recommend publication. 
I only think the length should be shortened significantly. At some stages in the introduction section 
the reader has the impression to deal with a review. Through the manuscript, the authors should focus on the genetic aspects only. 
Figure 1 is of poor quality and can easily be removed without altering the content. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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)
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-32 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Serum hyaluronate as a non invasive marker of hepatic fibrosis and inflammation in chronic Title: 
HBV infection 
 1  12 May 2005 Version: Date: 
 Thierry Poynard Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
1. The most interesting group of patients are patients with HBV infection but without decompensated 
cirrhosis as in this group there is no need of fibrosis biomarkers. Therefore the primary endpoint 
should be the diagnosis of advanced fibrosis (including or not decompensated cirrhosis). The 
respective AUROCs should be performed excluding the control group without HBV infection. It is not 
clear from the AUROC data if he controls were excluded. 
2. Table 4. Details of the number of subjects should be given, not only the percentages. 
3. Quality of biopsies sample should be detailed: length, fragments, number of portal tracts. 
4. Discordant cases between hyaluronate and biopsy should be discussed both from the risk of 
failure from hyaluronate and from biopsy sampling error. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
Abstract : 
5. Delete reference to inflammation which not the primary endpoint for the diagnostic value of 
hyaluronate. 
6. Modify the sentence giving an AUROC for a cut-off, as by definition the AUROC is calculated for all the values of a quantitative test. 
7. References concerning Fibrotest-ActiTest-Fibrosure which is the most studied biomarkers are 
lacking particularly reference in HBV (Myers et al J Hepatol) 8. The definition of upper limit of normal should be defined due to the inter laboratory variability 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have a conflict of interest as I am the inventor of FibroTest and I have a capital interest in the 
startup company from Paris University marketing FibroTest.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-32 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Serum hyaluronate as a non invasive marker of hepatic fibrosis and inflammation in chronic Title: 
HBV infection 
 1  17 May 2005 Version: Date: 
 Jean-Pierre P ZARSKI Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General This manuscript reports the interest of hyaluronic acid in the detection of liver fibrosis in 
chronic hepatitis B. However only few patients were included and not correctly separated according to liver fibrosis (F0 to F4). It is unnecessay to include decompensated cirrhosis. We don' have any informations on the comparison between HBe Ag(+) and HBe Ag (-) patients. Finally we know that 
hyaluronate has a lower sensitivity and specificity than Fibrotest or other markers. The comparison 
between these different parameters is necessary 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 scientifically unsound What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-32 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Serum hyaluronate as a Non-invasive Marker of Hepatic Fibrosis and Inflammation in Title: 
HBeAg-negative Chronic Hepatitis B 
 4  19 July 2005 Version: Date: 
 Edoardo Giovanni Giannini Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The manuscript was greatly improved. I appreciated the thoughtful review of the paper made by the 
Authors. However, there are still some points that need to be addressed. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
1. The Authors state that they aimed at evaluating the usefulness of HA for discrimination of "levels 
of fibrosis". On the basis of the typology of patients studied and of the obtained results, I would suggest that the aim should be "to evaluate the presence of extensive fibrosis in patients with 
chronic hepatitis B". 
2. Methods. The Authors should report in the text that their pathologist was unable to differentiate 
fibrosis stage 5 and 6. 
3. I would be glad to see a scattergram of the HA serum levels plotted against fibrosis scores. 
4. Discussion, page 9, second paragraph (HA cut-offs): The Authors should add that the cut-off 
value for a given variable depends upon the sample in which it has been identified. In order to be 
reproducible, a cut-off value should be obtained in a sample representative of the population with 
the disease. 5. Discussion, page 9, third paragraph (HA predictive values): Fifty-four out of 65 patients had 
extensive fibrosis, and 54 out of 65 had "extensive" inflammation. What was the relationship 
between these two histological features in this cohort? 
6. Discussion, page 10, last paragraph: On the basis of their results, the Authors can conclude that HA was correlated with stage and predictive for the presence of extensive fibrosis but not "predictive 
for the level of fibrosis". 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, Conclusions, first line: I would suggest "Serum hyaluronate was the best predictor of the 
presence of extensive fibrosis..." rather than "...of the presence of liver fibrosis...". 
2. Background, first line: HBV should be spelled out the first tme it is cited in the text. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 Level of interest: 
interests 
 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-5-32 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Serum hyaluronate as a Non-invasive Marker of Hepatic Fibrosis and Inflammation in Title: 
HBeAg-negative Chronic Hepatitis B 
 4  27 July 2005 Version: Date: 
 Thierry Poynard Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
1. The box plot of hyaluronate according to each fibrosis stage must be given 
2. In the discussion it must be stated that in comparaison to FibroTest-ActiTest hyaluronic acid 
seems to have a lower sensitivity for minimal fibrosis (as in chronic hepatitis C) as well as an 
absence of independent assessment of both fibrosis and activity as given by FibroTest-Actitest. 3. The range price of the hyaluronic acid should be given in different countries (Iran, US, Europe). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have a capital interest in Biopredictive the startup company of Paris University marketing 
FibroTest-ActiTest.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-32 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Serum hyaluronate as a Non-invasive Marker of Hepatic Fibrosis and Inflammation in Title: 
HBeAg-negative Chronic Hepatitis B 
 5  26 September 2005 Version: Date: 
 Edoardo Giovanni Giannini Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The Authors have answered to the questions and made the requested corrections to 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) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 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-5-32 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Serum hyaluronate as a Non-invasive Marker of Hepatic Fibrosis and Inflammation in Title: 
HBeAg-negative Chronic Hepatitis B 
 5  4 October 2005 Version: Date: 
 Thierry Poynard Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
OK now they repond to the main comments. 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I am the inventor of FibroTest
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-31 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Complement activation capacity in plasma before and during high-dose prednisolone Title: 
treatment and tapering in exacerbations of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. 
 4  23 June 2005 Version: Date: 
 Sk. Md. Fazle M Akbar Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
The authors have addressed some queries, especially about the methodology. But, it is not posisble 
for them to add some new patients. Acording to them, that is beyond the scope of the aim of the 
present study. They have also showed the validity of 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) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 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-5-31 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Complement activation capacity in plasma before and during high-dose prednisolone Title: 
treatment and tapering in exacerbations of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. 
 4  24 June 2005 Version: Date: 
 Ole Haagen H Nielsen Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I'm satisfied with all corrections made in the revised manuscript in accordance with my 1st revies of 
April 10, 2005. It's an interesting paper now worth for publication. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 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-5-30 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Bone mineral density and cytokine levels during interferon therapy in children with chronic Title: 
hepatitis B: does interferon therapy prevent osteoporosis? 
 1  18 February 2005 Version: Date: 
 Helen Gruber Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This study investigates BMD, biochemical markers and levels of selected cytokines in children with 
chronic hepatitis B treated with interferon-alpha compared to levels in age-matched, healthy 
children. Specific comments follow: 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
Please specify the length of time the children had hepatitis B, and the length of treatment time. If 
these parameters varied, how do the authors think this might have influenced their findings? 
Table 1. please state whether +/- values are SD or sem values. 
Table 2. please change this to present only significant correlations. 
Minor point: please capitalize the W in Ward’s triange. 
Final paragraph of Discussion: First sentence: revise to first state what was significant, and then 
state what these findings may suggest. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 Level of interest: 
interests 
 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-5-30 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Bone mineral density and cytokine levels during interferon therapy in children with chronic Title: 
hepatitis B: does interferon therapy prevent osteoporosis? 
 1  23 March 2005 Version: Date: 
 Birgitta Strandvik Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is an interesting paper from a field very little has been published yet. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
- The authors have two treatment groups, which are not separated and the results between the 
groups can not be compared. This is important since there is a paper, which should be referred to, 
which report differences in BMD between adults with viral hepatitis , treated with only INFalpha or a 
combined therapy with antiviral aget, as in the present paper ( Solis-Herruzo JA et al. J Hepatol 
2000;33:812-7). - The difference between the spine and the femur should be commented on. Would it be due to the 
relative short treatment period of 6 months? or are the difference due to other mechanisms? 
metbolism?? 
- The discussion is too long , especially the discussion about INFalpha´s effect is very repetetive. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 pages are not numbered. - 6th paragraph in introduction: "decrease in bone resorption.." should probably be increase in bone 
resorption 
- The patients were 4-15 years old. How can you receive informed consent from a 4 year old? this is 
said to be an exclusion criteria!! You have to modify this. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have no conflicts of interest related to the issue in this paper or its subject.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-30 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Bone mineral density and cytokine levels during interferon therapy in children with chronic Title: 
hepatitis B: does interferon therapy prevent osteoporosis? 
 1  31 March 2005 Version: Date: 
 Dan MellstrÃ¶m Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Interesting manuscript with great implications for future treatment of osteoporosis. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
The study contains two treatment groups.However in the statistics there is no separation of the results which is important since an earlier publication 
showed a decrease in bone mass with treatment with interferon plus ribavirin 
in contast to treatment with interferon only.J Hepatol 2000 33 Solis-Herruzo JA. Baseline data of BMD and bonemarkers before treatment should be presented. 
There are earlier reports that patients with hepatitis C in some cases have high 
BMD.The basic understanding of the relation of bone resorption and interferon 
was published in Nature 2000 30;408 Takayanagi H et al.The two mentioned reports 
should be discussed in the present report.The discussion should be shorter 
with fewer references. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) In the introduction second page and second line it is stated that the main 
pathophysiological process in postmenopausal osteoporosis is a decrease in bone 
resorption.Should be increase in bone 
resorption.------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-30 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Bone mineral density and cytokine levels during interferon therapy in children with chronic Title: 
hepatitis B: does interferon therapy prevent osteoporosis? 
 3  13 July 2005 Version: Date: 
 Helen Gruber Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General My comments have been addressed in the revision. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
My comments have been addressed in the revision. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
My comments have been addressed in the revision. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 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-5-30 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Bone mineral density and cytokine levels during interferon therapy in children with chronic Title: 
hepatitis B: does interferon therapy prevent osteoporosis? 
 3  18 August 2005 Version: Date: 
 Dan MellstrÃ¶m Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
No further revision are recommended 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) 
Lan 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 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-5-29 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 High rates of early "e" seroconversion and relapse in Indian patients of chronic hepatitis B Title: 
treated with Lamivudine : results of an open labeled trial 
 1  16 April 2005 Version: Date: 
 Yasuhiko Sugawara Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
Alexander and colleagues reported the results of treatment for hepatitis B patients with lamivudine. 
The HBeAg seroconversion rate after the 1 year of therapy was 28% which was higher than those 
previously published. The text seems to be of garrulity but well written and the study design was good. 
(Minor Essential Revisions) 
1. Please define HBeAg loss in the methods. What is the difference with seroconversion of HBeAg to anti HBe? 
1. (P5) ULN should be spelled out when it appeared first time in the manuscript. 
2. (P5) ‘data was’ should be changed to ‘data were’. 3. Fig 2 should be deleted. It is easy to understand most of the seroconversion occurred in the first 
post treatment year. 
4. Fig. 3 should be changed. The results of groups divided by the ALT levels (i.e. <=1 xULN, >1 - 
<=2xULN, >2xULN) should be shown. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
Yasuhiko Sugawara
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-28 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Rhinosinusitis derived Staphylococcal enterotoxin B possibly associates with pathogenesis of Title: 
ulcerative colitis 
 2  5 July 2005 Version: Date: 
 elizabeth furrie Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This manuscript demonstrates that there may be a subset of UC patients with high levels of IgE some of which is directed towards SEB. From this data it is impossible to dissect whether this is the initiating factor in UC or the progression factor. This should be made clear in the text 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
Further points 
1. Figure 8 still has no isotype control 
2. Figure 11, the authors have misunderstood my initial comment about this figure. There is too 
much statistical analyses which detracts from the important comparison in this figure. UC only 
against normal and UC only against UC-CRS. That is what you should be analysing not just 
everything against everything else. The real story is the AND after SEB exposure in the UC-CRS 
versus the UC only. As it stands this figure is difficult to follow and unhelpful. The authors need to 
think what they are trying to say. 3. Figure 12 is also over analysed furthermore the authors have completely missed out any mention 
of the symbol& in the figure legend. What are the critical comparisons in this work and what does it 
mean in the context of the manuscript. 
4. Page 12 line 1. It is not acceptable just to miss out the primary antibody an isotype control must be 
used please amend this in the text. 
5. Page 22 line 18 sentence beginning Although This sentence makes no sense please clarify 
6. Please remember that et al should be in italics 7. The English in this second draft is much improved. There are still some grammatical errors present and the authors need to read the final draft very carefully 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 Level of interest: 
interests 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competeing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-27 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Autoimmune hepatitis in India: is it uncommon or underdiagnosed Title: 
 2  8 February 2005 Version: Date: 
 Shiv K Sarin Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
Comments 
Autoimmune Hepatitis in India 
The study by Choudhary et al is related to Autoimmune Hepatitis In India. 
They have suggested that this disease is rather uncommon and presents late 
in the Indian context. There are several major concerns with this study: 
Comments: 
1. It is not clear, which components of the criteria of the 
International Autoimmune Hepatitis Group were present in the 30 patients 
with definite AIH and 8 patients with probable AIH. These have not been 
specified at all. 
2. Only one patient was positive for AMA, however PBC was 
diagnosed in three patients. How? 
3. In patients with chronic presentation and not undergoing 
liver biopsy, how was the presence of cirrhosis excluded? 
4. In three patients without antibody positivity, what 
diagnostic criteria were fulfilled. What were their liver histology 
findings and were they definite AIH or probable AIH based on the 
international criteria. 
5. No mention has been made of the dilutions of ANA, ASMA, 
etc. in the results. 
6. The results are very casually written. The treatment 
options regimens, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, end-point of therapy 
and treatment response have not been defined. 
7. Discussion is quite speculative and is a repetition of 
results. It is mentioned in the first Para that there is low prevalence of 
AIH due to genetic or geographic reasons. No basis has been given. 
8. Overall, there is nothing new in this study. There are 
already published recent and large Indian studies and authors have not found 
much difference in their study as compared to previous Indian studies.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-27 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Autoimmune hepatitis in India: is it uncommon or underdiagnosed Title: 
 2  22 February 2005 Version: Date: 
 F B Bianchi Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
In this paper the authors analyse the prevalence of autoimmune liver 
diseases in India; the paper could be of interest, but some issues arise: 
1.. I'm not sure about the diagnosis of PBC in three patients; which stage 
of disease is suggested by the histological assessment in these three 
patients ? Are they cholestatic? The authors should clarify this aspect. 2.. Which criteria did the authors use to differentiate the chronic from the acute onset in AIH patients? 
Accept with minor revision 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-27 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Autoimmune hepatitis in India: profile of an uncommon disease Title: 
 3  8 April 2005 Version: Date: 
 Liliana Simona Gheorghe Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
I re-reviewed the manuscript 
Autoimmune hepatitis in India: profile of an uncommon disease byby Gourdas 
Choudhuri, Sanjay K Somani, Chalamalasetty S Baba and George Alexander 
and the way in which the author have answered to my points and I found that the paper is now well written and discussed. I consider it ready for 
publication.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-27 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Autoimmune hepatitis in India: profile of an uncommon disease Title: 
 3  20 April 2005 Version: Date: 
 Shiv K Sarin Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
Answers to the queries have been partly given. However, the statements in 
discussion that all patients were serologically positive is incorrect (see 
table 4). Mean score of AIH in definite and probable group not given. 
Further, the SD is higher than mean in table 3 for most parameters. Why not 
median and range? 
Fig. 1.not needed There is nothing new in the data which is small in sample size than previous 
Indian studies published on AIH. 
 Reject because too small an advance to publish What next?: 
 An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a scientific/medical Level of interest: 
journal
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-26 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Hepatitis B virus infection in male volunteer blood donors in Karachi, Pakistan Title: 
 1  4 March 2005 Version: Date: 
 Ajay Duseja Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
Is this study first of its kind in Pakistan? The authors should do more literature search and should 
discuss other population based or hospital based studies done in Pakistan rather than writing that the figures for HBV infection in Pakistan are not known. Some of the studies are mentioned for their ready reference. 
1.Kakepoto GN, Bhally HS, Khaliq G, Kayani N, Burney IA, Siddiqui T, Khurshid M. Epidemiology of 
blood-borne viruses: a study of healthy blood donors in Southern Pakistan. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 1996 Dec;27(4):703-6. 2.Tareen S, Eslick GD, Kam EP, Byles JE, Durrani AB, Maree SM. High prevalence of hepatitis B 
virus (HBV) among male blood donors in a developing country: urgent need for systematic 
screening. Scand J Infect Dis. 2002;34(9):712-3. 3.Khokhar N, Gill ML, Malik GJ. General seroprevalence of hepatitis C and hepatitis B virus infections in population. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2004 Sep;14(9):534-6. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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. In the Background reference 14 for the prevalence of HBV in thalassemia patients is not correct (Ref 14- is regarding healthy blood donors). Similarly reference 19 for HCC patients is incorrect. 
2. In Discussion- While giving reason for difference between two blood banks authors clarify that the 
low prevalence in blood bank I is due to high socioeconomic group and high prevalence in blood 
bank II is due to low socioeconomic status. Why then incidence is increasing in blood bank I and decreasing in blood bank II. 
3. Authos should discuss about the occult HBV infection which may be missed by just doing HBsAg. 
Role of ALT, Anti-HBc and HBV DNA in detecting such patients and the prevalence of occult HBV 
infection amongst healthy blood donors should be mentioned. 4. Discussion can be shortened. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-26 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Epidemiologic study of chronic hepatitis B virus infection in male volunteer blood donors in Title: 
Karachi, Pakistan 
 3  16 April 2005 Version: Date: 
 Ajay Duseja Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
In the discussion authors have confused the whole issue by stating that HBeAg is a test for acute HBV infection. Instead IgM anti HBc is a test for acute HBV hepatitis and though HBeAg is positive 
in acute HBV hepatitis it is used to look for viral replication in acute and chronic HBV hepatitis. 
Anyway the point here is not to bring in the discussion of acute hepatitis but 
What I had asked was to mention as limitation of their study the importance of ALT, anti HBc and 
HBV DNA as markers of occult HBV infection which they have not done in this study. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-26 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Epidemiologic study of chronic hepatitis B virus infection in male volunteer blood donors in Title: 
Karachi, Pakistan 
 4  14 June 2005 Version: Date: 
 Ajay Duseja Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'