JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-18 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:High APACHE 2 score and long length of bowel resection impair the
outcomes in patients with necrotic bowel induced hepatic portal venous gas
Version: 2Date:21 February 2011
Reviewer: Olivier Monneuse
Reviewer's report:
Major points: all the major points had been corrected.
Minor point: ref 15 should be included with citations of ref 9 and 10 (until now, the
single report that investigated the necrotic bowel including hepatic portal venous
gas contained less than ten patients).
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-11-19 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Imaging in assessing hepatic and peritoneal metastases of gastric cancer:
a systematic review
Version: 2Date:15 November 2010
Reviewer: Robert M Kwee
Reviewer's report:
1# 2. The standard of reference had to be a surgery and histopathological
examination.
How can this be done in patients who were negative for liver and/or metastases
on preoperative imaging?
2# The upper limit of search date was not limited, and lower limit was January
16, 2010.
What do the authors mean with this phrase? If the literature search was
conducted until January 2010, it should be updated now.
3# The authors excluded studies which included patients who received
chemotherapy
pre-operatively.
I wonder whether this is justified: at present, neoadjuvant chemotherapy is the
standard of care in patients with gastroesophageal cancer.
Please comment on this, and your reasons to exclude patients who received
chemotherapy pre-operatively.
4# QUADAS had 14 items. How can studies have a quality score of more than
17??
5# What are “midas and metandi commands”? Please shortly explain for the
clinical reader who is not familiar to these terms.
6# DOR, which means the ratio of the odds of positive test results in diseased
group relative to the odds of positive test results in non-diseased group, is
considered as another important indicator of test accuracy that combines the
data from sensitivity and specificity into a new index[52]. The value of a DOR
ranges from zero to infinity, with higher value indicating higher accuracy. A
DOR of 1.0 shows that a test can not distinguish between patients with the
disease and those without it.
This paragraph does not belong in the discussion.
7# Many of the included CT studies had a section thickness of 10 mm and some
even had an interslice gap of also 10 mm. Many studies did not describe the slice
thickness they used. It is obvious that these studies may have missed small
hepatic metastases. In our institution, for instance, we use a slice thickness of
3.0 mm without an interslice gap to detect liver metastases.
Therefore, the authors´ conclusion that that CT did not obtain consistently high
sensitivity and specificity in detecting liver and peritoneal metastases in patients
with gastric cancer may mislead the reader of the article.
8# More attention should be paid to laparoscopy, PET/CT, as well as new PET
tracers such as 18F-FLT in the detection of liver and peritoneal metastases of
gastric
cancer in future.
Why not focusing on diffusion-weighted MRI of the liver or whole-body DW MRI?
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-19 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Imaging in assessing hepatic and peritoneal metastases of gastric cancer:
a systematic review
Version: 2Date:11 December 2010
Reviewer: Katja Ott
Reviewer's report:
The metaanalysis is on an interesting topic, because pretherapeutic staging in
gastric cancer gains importance due to the individualization of treatment.
However only the question of distant metastases (liver metastases and peritoneal
carcinomatosis) are addressed in this paper.
There is a clear aim of the study.
The metaanalysis seems to be conducted well, but needs to be reviewed by a
statistician to proof, whether the methods are appropriate.
Major revisions:
1.It would have been interesting to included reports on laparoscpy, because, it is
generally accepted, that the sensitivity for PC is really low for the chosen
stagingmethods
2. Is there a difference in sensitivity/specificity in respect of the Lauren
classification. It supposed to be higher for the intestinal subtype.
3. PET is not appropriate for the prediction of a PC. Especially nonintestinal
tumors are FDG inavid. Is there a difference in the sensitivity or specificity in
respect of the Lauren classification
4. The figure have to be explained better, because a nonstatistician cannot gain
proper information without special knowledge
Minor revisions:
1. spelling error: tittles
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-19 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Imaging in assessing hepatic and peritoneal metastases of gastric cancer:
a systematic review
Version: 3Date:1 February 2011
Reviewer: Robert M Kwee
Reviewer's report:
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-11-17 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence and severity of antipsychotic related constipation in patients
with schizophrenia: a retrospective descriptive study.
Version: 1Date:30 September 2010
Reviewer: Stefan A Mueller-Lissner
Reviewer's report:
This is a retrospective study in patients treated with antipsychotic drugs
evaluating the incidence (or prevalence?) of constipation. The gain in knowledge
by this analysis does not exceed what is already known, e.g. by the recent review
of the authors (reference 7).
Major Compulsory Revisions
o The methodology is questionable in several aspects.
o There is no definition of constipation except for being treated with a laxative
irrespective of dose, frequency, and duration.
o Implicitly a definition is made by stool filling of the colon in patients undergoing
GI evaluation, but this has not been done systematically.
o What was the definition of laxative intake? Was one dose during the entire
treatment period sufficient to classify the patient as constipated?
o Information on the frequency of constipation prior to being treated with
antipsychotics is lacking.
o Since the majority of the population under study was not treated with laxatives
a case control regarding type and dose of antipsychotics could have been done.
o Was there a dose-relationship between laxatives and antipsychotics?
o Results. The entire observation period was approximately 660 days. The mean
duration of admission is given as 472 +- 1,073 days. If the latter is one thousand
and seventy three than the data is not normally distributed (irrespective whether
SD or SE are given). Hence medians and ranges are appropriate.
o Results, last paragraph. Diagnosis of constipation using plain abdominal x-rays
has not been established (unless transit is measured).
Minor essential revisions
o Introduction, 4th paragraph. The 40,000 USD refer to which country? Or is it
worldwide?
o Both figures may be dropped.
o The English needs improvement.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-17 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence and severity of antipsychotic related constipation in patients
with schizophrenia: a retrospective descriptive study.
Version: 1Date:18 December 2010
Reviewer: Takefumi Suzuki
Reviewer's report:
Review of “Prevalence and severity of antipsychotic related constipation in
patients with schizophrenia: a retrospective descriptive study.” by Drs. Marc De
Hert et al.
Constipation in patients with schizophrenia frequently associated with
antipsychotic (and anticholinergic) medications is a potentially serious problem
although it has not gained adequate attention in the literature. The authors
examined 273 patients with schizophrenia to investigate prevalence of
constipation, to find that 36.3% needed a pharmacological intervention to
counteract the problem. The topic is certainly relevant in clinical practice but
retrospective nature of the study is an obvious limitation (as acknowledged by the
authors) and the following issues warrant a serious consideration.
Please indicate the actual ingredients (or medically universal names) of each
bowel medication (instead of showing the market names such as Movicol).
If available, the dose of anticholinergic agents may appear in Results. Also, in
supplementary Table 1, it is informative to describe the dosage of each
antipsychotic if data are available.
A failure to examine outpatient population would be regarded a limitation. This is
because inpatients are more likely treated with higher dose of antipsychotics
(and possibly anticholinergics) than outpatients, which may render the former
population more susceptible to intestinal motility problems.
Differences among antipsychotics in liability to cause constipation may be briefly
noted in Discussion (possibly in relation with anticholinergic properties).
In discussion, “In our study with a younger population of patients with
schizophrenia constipation rates were higher than in general population
samples.” This needs appropriate citation.
“The true prevalence in patient samples may be even higher since we only
obtained data on patients who were either referred to the somatic department or
who received treatment for constipation.” This appears contradictory to “There
were no other in–(inclusion) or exclusion criteria.” in Method.
Potential problems associated with long-term use of bowel preparations may be
briefly commented on in Discussion, since the authors found that constipation is
frequently a chronic issue in this population.
Finally, it would be important to comment on a possibility that antipsychotic dose
reduction can be a useful strategy where at all appropriate (Suzuki et al., J Clin
Pharm Ther 2007;32(5):525-7).
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-11-17 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence and severity of antipsychotic related constipation in patients
with schizophrenia: a retrospective descriptive study.
Version: 2Date:7 February 2011
Reviewer: Takefumi Suzuki
Reviewer's report:
The reviewer thinks the authors have adequately addressed concerns raised by
the referees. In Table 1, brand name for q(Q)uetiapine is missing. Also,
"sedative" may appear as "Low-potency typicals". The reviewer has no further
comments.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
Dr. Suzuki has received fellowship grants from the Japanese Society of Clinical
Neuropsychopharmacology, Government of Canada Post-Doctoral Research
Fellowships, Kanae Foundation, and Mochida Memorial Foundation, and
manuscript fees from Kyowa Hakko Kirin and Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-17 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence and severity of antipsychotic related constipation in patients
with schizophrenia: a retrospective descriptive study.
Version: 2Date:9 February 2011
Reviewer: Stefan A Mueller-Lissner
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for coming back with the amended manuscript. Though I do still
consider the paper of minor impact it has largely been improved, and I will not
object publication.
Minor point: it should read "macrogol" not "macrogel".
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-16 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Serum adiponectin and transient elastography (FibroScan) as non-invasive
markers for postoperative biliary atresia
Version: 1Date:20 January 2011
Reviewer: Themis Silveira
Reviewer's report:
RE: 'Serum adiponectin and transient elastography (FibroScan) as non-invasive
markers for postoperative biliary atresia'
Peer review:Themis Reverbel da Silveira MD, PhD
- "It is a very good article about Biliary Atresia (BA) and an attempt to develop
noninvasive tests for the assessment of fibrogenic progression of this disease.
The article follows a successful investigational research subject: the role of
cytokines and growth factors in physiopathology of BA .The authors (prof. Yong
Poovorawan and colaborators) recently reported interesting results related to
biochemical parameters like basic fibroblast growth factor, stem cell factor, bone
morphogenetic protein 7 and osteopontin in |BA. Concerning elastography , a
new medical technique recently used in children, normal values have not yet
been validated in children and deserve further and prospective studies. I suggest
that one reference could be added: de Ledinghen V et al. "Liver stiffness
measurement in children using FibroScan: feasibility study and comparison with
Fibrotest, aspartate transaminase to platelets ratio index and liver biopsy".
Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 2007; 45: 443.
In conclusion: this investigation showed, nicely, the potential role of serum
adiponectin and elastography for monitoring the progression of hepatic fibrosis in
BA patients."
Peer review:Themis Reverbel da Silveira MD, PhD
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-16 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Serum adiponectin and transient elastography as non-invasive markers for
postoperative biliary atresia
Version: 2Date:13 February 2011
Reviewer: Ancha Baranova
Reviewer's report:
I am satisfied with changes made by authors, the paper can be published in its
present form, but I recommend one more proofread.
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-11-15 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effects of omeprazole on symptoms and quality of life in Japanese patients
with reflux esophagitis: Final results of OMAREE, a large-scale clinical
experience investigation
Version: 1Date:23 September 2010
Reviewer: Fabio Pace
Reviewer's report:
The paper is interesting, updated and weel written.
Authors are to be gratulated.
The study is one of the largest in its filed.
The results are useful for the sicnetific community and deserve rapid publication
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-15 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effects of omeprazole on symptoms and quality of life in Japanese patients
with reflux esophagitis: Final results of OMAREE, a large-scale clinical
experience investigation
Version: 1Date:25 September 2010
Reviewer: Alan Thomson
Reviewer's report:
Effects of omeprazole on symptoms and quality of life in Japanese patients with
reflux esophagitis: final results of OMAREE, a large-scale clinical experience
investigation
This is a report of clinical experience of 9967 persons in Japan who had
endoscopically demonstrated erosive esophagitis, treated with different doses of
omeprazole, or with a variety of other medications (eg antacids, protectants,
H2-receptor antagonists), and were assessed at 4 and 8 weeks of treatment
using the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia Questionnaire (QOLRAD).
The paper was prepared by persons employed by Astra.
Comments and Suggestions
# Abstract
• It would be useful in the abstract how the findings reported in this paper
generally agreed with other reports in the literature.
# Background
• Lines 4-8. It is well accepted that endoscopic findings of reflux esophagitis (RE)
do not correspond to symptoms, it would be helpful to add references on the
following:
- is this also the case in Japan
- is this also the case for NERD (normal endoscopy reflux disease)
- what is the correlation between QOLRAD and RE symptoms or grade of
esophagitis (normal, or LA A to D).
# Methods
• Page 6, line 18: please clarify what medications patients were treated with for
maintenance therapy for a month prior to being placed on omeprazole (eg,
H2-RA maintenance switched to omeprazole?).
• For newly diagnosed patients with RE, how long was the interval before
treatment was initiated with omeprazole?
• Page 8, line 15: please define “a satisfactory improvement” (in subjective
symptoms, and was the same definition used throughout?)
# Results
• Page 10, line 3. please clarify: were only about 5 patients referred for study
from each medical institution (10,704 patients # 2143 medical institutions)?
• Please clarify what proportion of subjects were “new RE patients” versus “new
onset of recurrent GERD”?
• Few subjects had “heartburn” (none shown in Figure 1), and yet they all had
RE. please explain.
• What was the distribution of RE, LA grades A to D?
• Were patients suffering from nighttime symptoms?
• Was “headache” reported in the omeprazole-treated persons?
# Discussion
• Please discuss how the generalizability of this study might vary for other
groups, especially given the possible differences in BMI, smoking and H.pylori,
and the possibly unfamiliar term, “heavy feeling in the stomach”.
• Page 14, line 12: how do QOLRAD and QOLRAD-J differ?
- Was there a difference in QOLRAD-J depending on grade of RE (LA A to D)?
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-11-15 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effects of omeprazole on symptoms and quality of life in Japanese patients
with reflux esophagitis: Final results of OMAREE, a large-scale clinical
experience investigation
Version: 1Date:26 September 2010
Reviewer: Mattijs E Numans
Reviewer's report:
Although potentially interesting essentially this is a more or less classically
organized post-marketing survey of the use of omeprazole among patients with
RE in Japan. The interesting parts are that it investigates QOL as a primary
endpoint and that the study population is relatively large. The major flaws
however are, that it is uncontrolled, biased by indication (e.g. differences in
complaint characteristics between comparison groups) and that the authors do
not discuss these flaws adequately.
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
Yes it is presented as a study describing and surveying symptoms and QOL.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
Yes as long as you accept that this is a descriptive study, not comparing efficacy
of omepr with other drugs
3. Are the data sound?
It is unclear how many patients were excluded and for what reasons, so the
relation of the study population and the population "at risk" cannot be defined.
Apart from that the data presented seem sound.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
As long as you accept this is an uncontrolled study
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
No, this study does not allow to conclude that omeprazole is better than other
drugs
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
No, see above
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
No, they are refering to controlled trials that cannot be compared with the basis
of this study.
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
Again, this is an uncontrolled study.
9. Is the writing acceptable?
The English is reasonably well.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-15 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effects of omeprazole on symptoms and quality of life in Japanese patients
with reflux esophagitis: Final results of OMAREE, a large-scale clinical
experience investigation
Version: 2Date:24 December 2010
Reviewer: Mattijs E Numans
Reviewer's report:
This still is an interesting study in a large population and I agree with the authors
that its relevance is that it is closer to real practice than many RCTs can ever be.
My point of potential "bias by indication" (selection towards more serious
symptomatology, knowing that PPIs have a more longstanding and profound
effect than other antisecretory drugs especially in patients with erosive lesions)
has been taken by the authors in their cover letter, but not in the manuscript text.
However, I can live with it beint left as is. It might be overcome indeed by the
large number of participants and partly by the 4:1 strategy PPI:other drugs at
inclusion. So I would agree with publication of the revised version.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-15 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effects of omeprazole on symptoms and quality of life in Japanese patients
with reflux esophagitis: Final results of OMAREE, a large-scale clinical
experience investigation
Version: 2Date:12 January 2011
Reviewer: Alan Thomson
Reviewer's report:
The authors have satisfactorily responded to comments and suggestions. I
recommend the paper for publication.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-14 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:The actin-bundling protein Fascin is overexpressed in inflammatory bowel
disease and may be important in tissue repair.
Version: 1Date:23 September 2010
Reviewer: Laura Machesky
Reviewer's report:
This is an important and timely study implicating fascin for the first time in human
inflammatory bowel disease. The authors show increased fascin expression in
the base of crypts in diverticulitis and widespread fascin expression in Chron’s
colitis and ulcerative colitis. They implicate fascin in the restitution phase of
ulcerative colitis (UC) by showing high fascin expression in cells thought to be
actively migrating at the wound edges in healing ulcers. Using a panel of
samples, they show that fascin expression is higher and more widespread in
Chron’s than in UC. Finally, they test the effect of two commonly used treatments
against inflammatory bowel disease, ASA and sodium butyrate, on fascin
expression and they find that ASA lowers fascin expression and cell motility in
vitro, while butyrate has the opposite effect. Their findings suggest that patients
could benefit from a combination therapy where butyrate (or dietary fibre) were
used to maintain high fascin and high cell motility and ASA was used to reduce
the inflammation. This is a relatively small pilot study, but I think that it will spark
interest in the community and may hopefully lead to funding for larger studies to
determine the impact and usefulness of this discovery. I have only discretionary
comments for revisions.
Discretionary Revisions:
1) The fascin expression experiments would have more impact and be more
convincing if they were done quantitatively- e.g. run the experiment three times,
quantify the bands on the western blots and report the % increase or decrease in
the fascin levels.
2) The cell motility experiments would have more impact if they could be
repeated in at least one other cell line independently.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-14 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:The actin-bundling protein Fascin is overexpressed in inflammatory bowel
disease and may be important in tissue repair.
Version: 1Date:11 October 2010
Reviewer: Evanthia Kostopoulou
Reviewer's report:
The present paper is dealing with the interesting subject of fascin expression in
IBD, considering also the effects of therapeutic modalities on this expression.
Although it is an interesting study, according to my opinion, there are a few
points, which do not allow publication in its present form, and these are
mentioned below.
According to my opinion, the paper could be accepted after revision for
publication in BMC Gastroenterology.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. Materials and methods: A paragraph for statistics should be added.
2. Materials and methods: The authors did not comment on apoptosis detection.
3. Results: Figure 1C is not clear enough, but still suggests that differences in
stromal positivity might deserve a brief comment in the results or discussion
session.
Minor Essential Revisions:
4. Results: 2nd part, 3rd paragraph, «We have shown previously…» The phrases
belong to the discussion or introduction session.
Discretionary Revisions:
5. From the descriptions presented fascin seems to be upregulated in two
scenarios: surface flattened cells and crypt cells. The authors might try to
separate the two conditions, taking into consideration the fact that in several
situations fascin expressing cells are not the proliferating cells [a,b]. Additionally,
it would be interesting, although not necessary for the purpose of the present
study, to examine Ki-67 LI in the fascin-positive groups of cells.
6. Discussion: A comment may be added concerning epithelial-mesenchymal
transition in IBD, as presented in recent reports.
a) Kostopoulou E, Daponte A, Terzis A, Nakou M, Chiotoglou I, Theodosiou D, et
al. Fascin in ovarian epithelial tumors. Histol Histopathol 2008; 23:935–44.
b) Machesky L and Li A. Fascin. Invasive filopodia promoting metastasis.
Commun Integr Biology 2010; 3: 263-270
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-14 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:The actin-bundling protein Fascin is overexpressed in inflammatory bowel
disease and may be important in tissue repair.
Version: 2Date:19 January 2011
Reviewer: Evanthia Kostopoulou
Reviewer's report:
The present paper is dealing with the interesting subject of fascin expression in
IBD, including the effects of therapeutic modalities on this expression.
It is an interesting study and most of the previously suggested points for major
revision have been addressed by the authors.
Concerning previous suggestions for discretionary revisions, the authors have
chosen not to add any comment for Ki67 labelling or EMT, especially since,
according to their opinion, examining proliferation in the current study material
would require extensive investigation, beyond the scope of the present study.
Their decision does not affect the quality of the paper concerning publication,
although a reference might be added concerning the relevant data (for Ki67)
described by the authors in their coverletter.
According to my opinion, the present study could be accepted for publication in
BMC Gastroenterology and constitutes a useful contribution to the field, which
may prove to be of importance.
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-11-13 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Low prevalence of H. pylori Infection in HIV-Positive Patients in the
Northeast of Brazil
Version: 1Date:7 March 2010
Reviewer: Tomohiko Shimatani
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, the authors determined significant lower prevalence of H.
pylori infection in HIV-positive patients than that in HIV-negative patients, and no
association between H. pylori status and chronic active body gastritis in
HIV-positive patients. The study was well performed and very interesting. The
reviewer considered any particular critical problems were not found, however,
some questions have been raised as follows:
1. In this study, H. pylori status was determined by the rapid urease test and
histology. Why did the authors use the 13C urea breath test or H. pylori stool
antigen?
2. As the authors discussed, the mechanism of chronic active gastritis in the
gastric body in HIV-positive patients may be different from that in HIV-negative
patients. Other microorganisms, or some drugs using in the treatment of HIV,
may play a role. Some more precise explanations will be requited in the
discussion session.
3. ‘Figure 1’ was not attached on the text file.
4. Grammatical errors and misspellings could not be negligible. In particular,
definite articles (i.e., the) were not adequately used. Please be checked by an
English copyeditor.
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-11-13 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Low prevalence of H. pylori Infection in HIV-Positive Patients in the
Northeast of Brazil
Version: 1Date:2 October 2010
Reviewer: Waleed Alazmi
Reviewer's report:
1- Major Compulsory Revisions:
- Multiple Language errors and spelling mistakes in the abstract, manuscript and
the tables contents. It is advisable to review the manuscript by an English native
author.
- Figure 1 was not available in the supplement file and it was qouted in the text
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-13 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Low prevalence of H. pylori Infection in HIV-Positive Patients in the
Northeast of Brazil
Version: 1Date:12 October 2010
Reviewer: Rodrigo Machado
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions:
1. Methods. Staining used to stage gastritis should be described.
2. Results First paragraph. The sentence: “There was no statistical difference
between the groups in terms of age” is not needed as groups are age matched.
3. Results. Instead of p = 0.000 (as SPSS reports), the authors should use p <
0.001.
4. Discussion. A reference should be added to the second sentence of 3rd
paragraph (… life-long standing.).
5. Discussion. Another interesting result is that there was no patient with
intestinal metaplasia or athrophy. It may deserve comments.
6. Discussion. Add a reference number to Fu-Jing 2007 (20, I suppose) in the
last paragraph.
7. Tables. Commas misplaced in the p-value column of all tables (0.15 instead of
0,15, for instance).
8. Discussion. Although high prevalence in the Brazilian Northeast is informed,
no data is presented, but only the reference (17).
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Methods. Age-matched controls. The process of matching should be disclosed
(exact age was used or an interval?, specific software used in the process?
patients and controls enrolled in the same period?, enrollment of controls). This
explanation should also explain why the number of matched controls from that of
cases.
2. Methods. It should be described how exposure to antibiotics was defined
(current, last month, in life etc.).
3. Results. The authors should provide the topographical diagnosis (for instance:
H. pylori chronic active gastritis, or H. pylori antrum predominant chronic active
gastritis) according to the updated Sydney System and, then, describe
differences in topographical distribution of gastritis between the two groups.
4. Table 3 should be redesigned.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Results. The total described in the 1st line (270) is wrong (total was 113+141 =
254).
2. Discussion. Information provided on ref 29 in the 6th paragraph is not exact,
as monotherapy in that study eradicated 13/37 patients (35.1%). Although such a
low rate precludes the clinical use of monotherapy for eradicating H. pylori, it is
epidemiologically important.
3. Limitations of the present study should be discussed.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-13 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Low prevalence of H. pylori Infection in HIV-Positive Patients in the
Northeast of Brazil
Version: 2Date:27 December 2010
Reviewer: Tomohiko Shimatani
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript was well revised. The reviewer did not find any serious problems
for acceptance.
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-11-13 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Low prevalence of H. pylori Infection in HIV-Positive Patients in the
Northeast of Brazil
Version: 2Date:29 December 2010
Reviewer: Rodrigo Machado
Reviewer's report:
The revision provided by the authors is quite satisfactory, and all comments that
had been made by the reviewers were adequately addressed. I think the article is
almost ready for publication, pending only some small spelling corrections (such
as Chronic instead of Cronic in the table 3).
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-12 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Modified Mallampati Classification as a Clinical Predictor of Peroral
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Tolerance
Version: 1Date:8 November 2010
Reviewer: Akira Horiuchi
Reviewer's report:
Major comments:
This study is well designed and written. So this paper will give important
information to endoscopists who are doing unsedated peroral EGD.
In discussion, the data in this paper may not be related to transnasal EGD, but
the association between this study and transnasal EGD should be stated.
Minor comments:
This paper should be shortened as much as possible.
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-11-12 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Modified Mallampati Classification as a Clinical Predictor of Peroral
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Tolerance
Version: 1Date:25 December 2010
Reviewer: Akihiro Mori
Reviewer's report:
The aim of this study was to predict EGD tolerance in unsedated patients by
using Modified Mallampati Classification (MMC). The authors reported that MMC
may be a clinical predictor of EGD tolerance because it was significantly
correlated to gag reflex, patients’ satisfaction and change of vital signs. Their
conclusion is very interesting. However, there are some issues that concern me.
Concerns:
1. Patient satisfaction
# The authors assessed patient satisfaction by asking only easy question such
as "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory". This question seems to be far from an
accurate reflection of patients' EGD tolerance. My question is why the authors did
not use a universally accepted instrument, for example visual analogue scale, to
evaluate the patients' acceptability of EGD. They should describe more specific
on the matter.
# There is neither result nor comment regarding willingness to repeat unsedated
EGD. Is this question necessary?
2. Did the authors use any anti-peristaltic agents like scopolamine butylbromide
or glucagon? Please mention how many patients received any of these
medications if they were used as these medications may also have influenced
the outcome of this study.
3. GIF-Q260 is slightly different from GIF-XQ260 and XQ240 in the diameter
size. The diameter of an endoscope is expected to have an influence on patients'
tolerance. They should comment how many patients were performed with Q260
and whether this usage affects their tolerance.
4. Neither the atrophic gastritis nor Helicobactor Pylori infection is included in the
main diagnosis. Please mention whether these diseases affect EGD tolerance.
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-11-12 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Modified Mallampati Classification as a Clinical Predictor of Peroral
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Tolerance
Version: 3Date:29 January 2011
Reviewer: Akihiro Mori
Reviewer's report:
The authors modified their manuscript according to the suggestions. The quality
of this manuscript is improved. I expect that this article is useful for prediction of
EGD tolerance in unsedated patients.
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-11-11 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for dyspepsia: Exploratory study of
factors influencing patient compliance in Greece
Version: 2Date:4 November 2010
Reviewer: Anna Gagliardi
Reviewer's report:
MINOR ESSENTIAL REVISIONS
Participants
"all interviews were included within the study for th establishment of solid
conclusions" - not clear what this means
"patients were evaluated using a Greek translation..." patient <what> was
evaluated - clinical characteristics, demographic attributes...?
Interview development
"The TPB guided the construction of <an> interview <guide which was>
approved by...
Interview development
"the TPB diagram is clearly illustrated in the <add name/word rather than link?>
Analysis of data
although the authors elaborated on their qualitative methods, further detail about
how the qualitative analysis was undertaken would be helpful, particularly to
naive readers
also, the sentence about multivariate regression analysis needs some
explanation - what data was this analysis used for - to distinguish these methods
from the qualitative methods
"qualitative content analysis was performed since the data that have been drawn
from the interviews were consisted from free responses to the open ended
questions of our survey" - not clear what this means
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-11-11 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for dyspepsia: Exploratory study of
factors influencing patient compliance in Greece
Version: 2Date:8 November 2010
Reviewer: Aanand Naik
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Overall, the authors
were responsive to the reviewers' suggestions and areas of comment. I have two
overall suggestions related to this new revision. 1)Please accept all track
changes and then highlight any edits with italics or underline function. The tables
are not readable with track changes. 2) Please have a native English speaker
read and edit the manuscript. The prior version had a few scattered areas that
were problematic. The manuscript now is difficult to follow without extensive
editing.
--I would be willing to review again, but as of now I found the manuscript very
difficult to read and follow because of the combination of these two points.
Minor essential revisions:
a) Remove the quantitative comment in the methods section of the abstract and
remove the quantitative statistical analysis described in the methods. This is a
qualitative paper (not even a mixed methods paper) and you should leave out the
quantitative elements except in perhaps your demographics paper. But
comparisons here are strictly for descriptive purposes.
b) The transitions in the introduction need to be better linked. The authors have
been responsive to the reviewers but the transitions between paragraphs are
difficult to follow.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-11 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for dyspepsia: Exploratory study of
factors influencing patient compliance in Greece
Version: 3Date:5 January 2011
Reviewer: Aanand Naik
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed many of the other points raised in my prior reviews.
I thank the authors and the editor for the opportunity to review this interesting and
hypothesis generating work.
I have 2 Minor Essential Revisions that I trust the authors will be able to easily
make.
1) I would suggest rephrasing the conclusion of the abstract to improve clarity:
"This exploratory study found that patients with dsypepsia in rural Greece tend to
avoid upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Two major themes were attributed to
patients' refusal to undergo endoscopy: their beliefs towards endoscopy and their
perceived capability to tolerate the procedure. Future research examining
reasons for low compliance should be informed by modern behavioral theories."
2) Table 1 headings need to be consistent with the table legend. The legend
uses the terms "Adherent and Nonadherent Patients" The table itself using
"Complaints" and "Non Compliants" I would suggest sticking with "Adherent and
Nonadherent" There are three distinct points in Table 1 in which these labels
should be switched.
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' below. If your reply is yes to any,
please give details below.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-10 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:The overexpression of Sterol Carrier Protein 2 gene in patients of
hereditary cholesterol gallstones
Version: 6Date:28 September 2010
Reviewer: Michael Fuchs
Reviewer's report:
The study of Cui et al. studied the gene expression of SCP2 in cholesterol
gallstone patients and controls and measured biliary lipid concentration of
gallbladder bile in thee individuals as well. The study further supports the notion
that SCP2 participates in the formation of cholesterol gallstones, although the
molecular mechanisms are still only partially resolved and were not aim of the
study.
Major comments:
1. The study provides limited new data when compared with Ito et al
(Gastroenterology 1996). This study was cited by the authors. This clearly needs
to be corrected and the authors should highlight the new information their study
adds to the literature.
2. The manuscripts is poorly written, its English needs improvement and it should
be shortened by 30% which can be achieved with a more concise writing style.
3. Limitations of the study (e.g. no molecular mechanism studied) are not
appropriately addressed.
Minor comments:
1. References 1 and 2 do not support the first sentence in the Background
section.
2. There is very limited reference in the Methods section.
3. The last paragraph in the Background section should be part of the Methods
section.
4. The results displayed in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 may be expressed as percent of
control. The legend for Fig. 2 is incomplete. It also appears that the SCP2 protein
expression is higher in controls than in gallstone carriers.
5. Figure 4 and Table 1 can be eliminated and placed in the text of the Results
section.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I DO NOT HAVE ANY COMPETING INTERESTS.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-10 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:The overexpression of Sterol Carrier Protein 2 gene in patients of
hereditary cholesterol gallstones
Version: 6Date:5 October 2010
Reviewer: Ahmet Tekin
Reviewer's report:
The Authors investigated the expression level of liver SCP2 gene in hereditary
and non-hereditary cholesterol gallstone patients and non-cholesterol gallstone
patients and they found that Cholesterol Saturation Index (CSI) significant
differences in between cholesterol gallstone patients and non-cholesterol
gallstone patients, but there was no significant difference in CSI between
hereditary and non-hereditary cholesterol gallstone patients. The topic of the
manuscript is good. The study structured quite well. But there are too many
majors and minors grammatical errors. I edited the text and recommended some
sentences. The text should be re-written upon my recommendation. There are
also some errors in the references.
These group has similar study in 2005 (Cui NQ, Zhang SK, Cui YF
etal:Overexpression of sterol carrier protein-2 mRNA in patients with
cholesterolgallstone. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2005,4:117-20). The Authors
should discuss the differences between the former and the current study in the
discussion section. What is the new in the current study?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'