JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-17 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Co-culture of primary human tumor hepatocytes from patients with
hepatocellular carcinoma with autologous peripheral blood mononuclear cells:
Study of their in vitro immunological interactions.
Version: 1Date:14 August 2012
Reviewer: Svenja Sydor
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript of Doumba et al. deals with the establishment of a functional cell
culture system of primary human tumorous hepatocytes and non-tumorous
hepatocytes from patients suffering from HCC (hepatocellular carcinoma).
Immune response plays a crucial role within the development and progression of
HCC and many studies suggest that HCC-patients show up a defective or
ineffective immune response thus promoting HCC progression. In the first
experiments the authors evaluated metabolic functionality by e. g. albumin
expression and the purity of the isolated cells by cell sorting analyses. To
analyze cell-to-cell interactions and to evaluate the role of immune response
mechanisms within different HCC derived cells the authors designed different
co-culture systems including tumorous and non-tumorous hepatocytes as well as
peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs).
In this study resected liver tissues as well as blood samples from 11 patients
were used to obtain different hepatocytes and PBMCs. Co-culture experiments
could show effective immune response against HCC-derived cells but this
response was lower in tumorous cells compared to non-tumorous hepatocytes.
This work shows a clear and well organized structure with adequate and well
established experiments and methods. Although the results did not always show
up statistical significance the differences between the individual groups exhibited
obvious tendencies. This might be due to the small study group of only 11
patients. In this case additional cell preparations from furhter patients could
improve this work.
Minor comment:
The shown graphs do not depict standard deviation (SD) as described in
methods passage. The authors should check this issue and complete their
graphical illustration with this information.
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-13-17 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Co-culture of primary human tumor hepatocytes from patients with
hepatocellular carcinoma with autologous peripheral blood mononuclear cells:
Study of their in vitro immunological interactions.
Version: 2Date:27 September 2012
Reviewer: Frank Tacke
Reviewer's report:
The authors have improved the manuscript and I acknowledge that they tried to
address all concerns that I raised in the first review.
To me, two points remain unclear from the responses to my comments:
1. The new figure 3 is not convincing, because two control conditions are lacking:
isotype control and positive control (T-cells/lymphocytes and macrophages,
respectively). Without these data, the "negative" staining is not interpretable.
2. I am furthermore not fully convinced by the MHC-II staining. However, I think it
should be easy to confirm this point by real-time PCR.
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-13-17 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Co-culture of primary human tumor hepatocytes from patients with
hepatocellular carcinoma with autologous peripheral blood mononuclear cells:
Study of their in vitro immunological interactions.
Version: 2Date:8 October 2012
Reviewer: Svenja Sydor
Reviewer's report:
As a minor comment I recommended to depict standard deviation in their graphs.
Although the authors rsponded to my comment by providing standard deviations
the revised changes are not acceptable yet. In figures 4c and 5c graph scales
are not correct thus standard deviations are not illustrated completely or seem to
be truncated.
I recommend changing the graph's scales to show standard deviations as a
whole. Furthermore SD levels are very high so significant changes between
some groups appear remarkable but due to a collective of 11 patients/cell
preparations it may be 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-13-17 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Co-culture of primary human tumor hepatocytes from patients with
hepatocellular carcinoma with autologous peripheral blood mononuclear cells:
Study of their in vitro immunological interactions.
Version: 3Date:5 December 2012
Reviewer: Frank Tacke
Reviewer's report:
The authors have chosen not to address my concerns that had remained after
the first round of review. It is disappointing that they were not even willing to
perform a simple real-time qPCR to back up their inconclusive FACS data.
However, overall the topic and the results are interesting, thus I think it is fair to
accept the manuscript for publication.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: 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-13-17 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Co-culture of primary human tumor hepatocytes from patients with
hepatocellular carcinoma with autologous peripheral blood mononuclear cells:
Study of their in vitro immunological interactions.
Version: 3Date:18 December 2012
Reviewer: Svenja Sydor
Reviewer's report:
The authors clarified all issues, there are no further comments.
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-13-16 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:The Burden of Hepatitis C in Europe from the Patients' Perspective: a
survey in 5 countries
Version: 2Date:9 November 2012
Reviewer: John Dillon
Reviewer's report:
This is a well written report. Extracting quality of life data from a large survey and
analysing it with respect to HCV status. There is a relatively small number of
HCV positive individuals and HCV status relies on self reporting. However within
these caveats the data is useful and appears robust.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have received fees for lectures and served on advisory panels for MERCK
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-15 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic large-balloon dilation alone versus endoscopic sphincterotomy
plus large-balloon dilation for the treatment of large bile duct stones
Version: 1Date:19 November 2012
Reviewer: Jong Ho Moon
Reviewer's report:
Major points
1. It seems that the initial ballooning conditions are important in this procedure.
Was the gradual inflation time to disappearance of the waist same in both group?
Does it need more slowly inflation in EPLBD without sphincterotomy group?
Please, give more detail description about the gradual inflation until the
disappearance of the waist, especially in only EPLBD group.
2. Ballooning size was selected according to the sizes of the stones and bile
duct. In result, authors showed maximum transverse diameter of the bile duct in
table 1. However, the diameter of the distal CBD directly affected with EPLBD is
more important in the selection the size of balloon. Practically, table 1 and 2
show difference between bile duct size and the diameter of inflated balloon.
Please provide the diameter of distal CBD in both groups.
Minor points
1. In discussion section, authors describe that EPLBD without sphincterotomy
may be associated with a lower risk of postprocedure bleeding. However, there is
no sufficient data for this description. What do you think about it?
2. Authors defined the technical success as complete removal of all CBD stones
after EPLBD without the need for mechanical lithotripsy. However, there are no
descriptions about the technical success rate in result section. Maybe it means
complete stone removal without ML. It seems to be need of consistant
description in the article.
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 for this article.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-13 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Erythromycin versus neomycin in the treatment of hepatic encephalopathy
in cirrhosis: a randomized double-blind study
Version: 2Date:14 June 2012
Reviewer: Mariano Malaguarnera
Reviewer's report:
Hepatic encephalopathy is one of the major complications in cirrhosis and in the
past, few treatments are used for severe encephalopathy such as rifaximina,
lactulose, flumazenil, L acetyl carnitine, probiotics.
MINOR REVISION
The methods should be better described.
The use of erytromycin versus neomycin seems to reduce the hospitalisation
length, however is necessary a better valuation of hepatic encephalopathy
(grading).
Were there patients in coma? If there were patients in coma, how did patients
take the treatment?
Did the study have a follow up period?
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-13-13 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Erythromycin versus neomycin in the treatment of hepatic encephalopathy
in cirrhosis: a randomized double-blind study
Version: 3Date:21 December 2012
Reviewer: Felix Gundling
Reviewer's report:
The revised version of the paper can be accepted
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-14 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:The impact of MFG-E8 in chronic pancreatitis: potential for future
immunotherapy?
Version: 2Date:11 November 2012
Reviewer: Thomas Griesbacher
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed the points raised in my initial comment in a suffienct
manner.
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-13-14 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:The impact of MFG-E8 in chronic pancreatitis: potential for future
immunotherapy?
Version: 2Date:28 November 2012
Reviewer: Patrick Yachimski
Reviewer's report:
I still think it would be important to know the tobacco use/smoking status of
subjects, for reasons indicated previously. I do not see that this has been
included. If this information is not available or can not be included, then this
should at least be acknowledged as a limitation in the discussion section of the
manuscript.
The authors have otherwise responded to comments/suggestions in satisfactory
fashion.
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-13-12 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:GERD assessment including pH metry predicts a high response rate to PPI
standard therapy.
Version: 1Date:18 November 2012
Reviewer: Fabio Pace
Reviewer's report:
I have no particular criticism to the article.
Some spelling errors through the text (example: pag 8, paragraph Statistical
analysis, line 1: were should read where).
I suggest that the important reference [20] should be more commented in the
discussion section
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-12 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:GERD assessment including pH metry predicts a high response rate to PPI
standard therapy.
Version: 1Date:22 November 2012
Reviewer: Tom&aacute;s Navarro-Rodriguez
Reviewer's report:
This is a very interesting study because only naive PPI patients were included.
The methodology is adequate despite the small number of patients. Thirty-one
patients were included with three different diagnosis (NERD, Erosive esophagitis
and Barrett's esophagus).
The following quoted sentence " patients with NERD diagnosed based on
abnormal pH metry had similar response rates to esomeprazole as ERD" cannot
be a conclusion because of the limited sample.
It would be possible to accept it for publication as a Brief Report.
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-13-10 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Clinical Utility and Tolerability of JSPH-1 Wireless Esophageal pH
Monitoring System
Version: 3Date:16 September 2012
Reviewer: Georgios Karamanolis
Reviewer's report:
Jun-Nan Li et al conducted a clinical study to evaluate safety, tolerance and
clinical utility of a new Chinese wireless esophageal pH capsule. They concluded
that this new capsule is well tolerated and increased the yield of GERD
diagnosis.
1. There no clear inclusion criteria; patients with suspected or defined GERD,
patients who failed PPI therapy or without any therapy. What type of symptoms
did they have? How many patients had typical or atypical GERD symptoms? Do
they use a definition for GERD? Had the patients a previous endoscopy or only
prior the capsule attachment?
2. Why did they place the capsule 5 cm above SGJ and not 6 cm as the Bravo
system?
3. It is not clear what type of symptoms and with which method do they measure
the patients’ complaints. Do they use a Likert scale, numerous scales or
something else?
4. Why there was a long follow-up period for complications after capsule
detachment.
5. The meaning of the second phrase in the 1st paragraph of data analysis is not
very clear.
6. In data analysis for GERD definition the authors use DeMeester score and/ or
SI. It should be clarified.
7. 6 line, results: what the meaning of major patients
8. 8 line, results: How many patients referred foreign body sense and for long did
it last in those patients.
9. 14 line, results: which is the meaning of the phrase: no one……..during
detachment.
10. Paragraph 2, results: This is a very confused and difficult to understand
paragraph and should be clarified.
11. Is not clear if patients with SI (+) are the same with those with abnormal pH
or not.
12. 1st phrase in the last paragraph of results has already been mentioned
before and should be omitted.
13. It should be helpful to make an extra analysis for patients with typical and
atypical symptoms and abnormal pH monitoring.
14. Discussion should be shortened and should be focused on paper’s result and
a comparison to Bravo system.
15. The paper should be corrected for the language.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-10 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Clinical Utility and Tolerability of JSPH-1 Wireless Esophageal pH
Monitoring System
Version: 3Date:29 September 2012
Reviewer: Nicola de Bortoli
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author
I red interestingly your paper and I am very happy to know that a new wireless
device for prolonged (48-96 hours) esophageal acid exposure time is now
available.
Your results do not let us know about new insights in GERD pathophysiology, but
it is important to describe this new device for GERD monitoring.
I have two questions to submit to your attention:
1) Why do not consider Symptoms Association Probability (SAP) other than
Symptom Index (SI) to evaluate symptom-reflux correlation? If it is possible
please provide this data. SAP is considered more statistically reliable.
2) Why did you not prolong a 72-96 hours analysis of pH in your patients to
perform more detailed informations on your wireless system?
Thank you, best regards.
Nicola de Bortoli
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-13-10 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Clinical Utility and Tolerability of JSPH-1 Wireless Esophageal pH
Monitoring System
Version: 4Date:8 December 2012
Reviewer: Georgios Karamanolis
Reviewer's report:
The meaning of the second phrase in the 1st paragraph of data analysis is still
confusing to me.
In the discussion section the phrase
“JSPH-1 new pH monitoring system has higher working efficiency, higher
accuracy and longer working hours when compared to BRAVO pH capsule
system.” Should be followed by a reference or should be omitted.
Minor
There are many grammatical errors such as,
Abstract: 2nd line: . The aim instead of , the aim
Page 9: 4th line from the bottom: The instead of the
Page 10: 7th line: Therefore instead of therefore
Conclusiosn: 4th line: patients instead of Patients
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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-9 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Diabetes mellitus impacts risk of macrovascular invasion in patients
undergoing transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 1Date:28 June 2012
Reviewer: Francesco D'Amico
Reviewer's report:
minor essential revision
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, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-9 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Diabetes mellitus impacts risk of macrovascular invasion in patients
undergoing transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 1Date:26 September 2012
Reviewer: Alistair W Stewart
Reviewer's report:
This paper is clearly written. I have only a few relatively minor comments.
Minor Essential Revisions
Page 8: section on survival. The reporting of median survival times and then
mean survival times with other statistics is confusing. The standard deviation is
not a very useful statistic in this situation and the maximum survival is of no value
when about 50% of the patients have a censored survival time. This whole
paragraph needs tidying up to give the reader a clear picture of what has
occurred. The authors might like to consider a figure showing the survival curves
with 95%CI for these curves. This may be a better way of describing the
situation.
Table 1. There is extensive use of abbreviations in this table – these need to be
written in full or defined as a footnote. AFP (not described elsewhere) needs to
have a measure of variation reported as does the transplant wait list time. The
variation could be reported using inter quartile range.
Tables 2, 3 & 4. The number of decimal places should be reduced to an
appropriate level. It is ‘95% Confidence Limits’. Table 4 the P value for DM needs
correcting.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-7 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation of a new fluorescence quantitative PCR test for diagnosing
Helicobacter pylori infection in children
Version: 1Date:24 August 2012
Reviewer: Giulia Martina Martina Cavestro
Reviewer's report:
A new fluorescence quantitative PCR (fqPCR) accuracy to detect HP urease A
gene is discussed in the paper by Ou et al.
138 children gastritis biopsy specimens were sent for histological examination,
rapid urease test (RUT), 13C-urea breath test and fqPCR. Gastric fluids and
dental plaques were also collected in order to perform fqPCR for the HP urease
A gene detection analysis. Results showed 27.5% of the patients were
Hp-positive infection by reference standard. Gastric mucosa fqPCR not only
detected all 38 Hp-positive patients but also detected 8% of the reference
standard negative children or 10.7% of the histology-negative samples.
Therefore, gastric mucosa fqPCR identified 33.3% children with Hp infection,
significantly higher than reference standard or histology (p<0.01). Both gastric
fluid and dental plaque fqPCR only detected 23.2% and 21.7% children with Hp
infection respectively and was significantly less sensitive than mucosa fqPCR
(p<0.05). Authors concluded gastric mucosa fqPCR for the HP urease A gene
detection was more sensitive than histology, RUT, 13C-urea breath test alone or
in combination to detect H. pylori infection in children with chronic gastritis. Either
gastric fluid or dental plaque PCR is as reliable as 13C-urea breath test for Hp
detection.
Recently, assays based on PCR technology were employed to detect the
presence of H. pylori DNA using several gene targets including urease A gene,
the 26-kDa species-specific antigen (SSA) gene, the phosphosamine mutase
(glmM) and the cagA gene (UreC PCR).
The question posed by the authors is narrowed, methods are appropriate and
pinned down and manuscript adheres to the relevant standards for reporting and
data deposition.
The largest limitation of the work is not clearly stated and therefore an accurate
revision is required. (Major Compulsory Revision)
Authors made no mention of immunohistochemical stain for Hp infection.
Immunohistochemical stain is readily available in routine histology laboratories
and it is a cost effective way of demonstrating bacteria with the highest
sensitivity, specificity and interobserver agreement.
In order to assess fqPCR higher accuracy in comparison to histology, I suggest
to perform in all gastric biopsy specimens the immunohistochemical stain for Hp
infection too.
Authors concluded fqPCR is more sensitive than histology and it could be a new
gold standard for Hp detection. Indeed, the comparison between fqPCR and
histology has to be performed also with immunohistochemical stain method.
Finally, I would suggest to add in the statistical analysis confidence intervals and
p value corrections (if applied).
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:
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-7 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation of a new fluorescence quantitative PCR test for diagnosing
Helicobacter pylori infection in children
Version: 2Date:7 November 2012
Reviewer: Thomas Wex
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed all issues appropriately, but I’m still not fully
convinced concerning the H. pylori-negative status. The authors used correctly
the clinical setting and differed between H. pylori-positive and the remaining
patients, subsequently defined as H. pylori-negative. Since no test available
today is a gold standard in regard to specificity and sensitivity, usually the “2 out
of three” rule is applied in clinical management. If a new test (like the studied
PCR) is evaluated, groups should be as “clean” as possible. The authors did this
for the H. pylori-positive by applying the rule mentioned above. It is well known
that due to medication with PPI, H2RA or for other reasons, bacterial load is
decreased, and therefore H. pylori might be not detected by all methods.
Therefore, the remaining group of patients includes also those with just one
positive test (RUT, breath test or histology).
The authors included additional patients (10+10) from the validation study that
meets the highest standard.
I suggest that the authors clearly define the H. pylori-negative status (on page 9)
as they did in the result section (page 10). For instance: “All other patients
(n=100) were assigned to the H. pylori-negative group. Note that among those,
xx patients were negative in all tests applied, and xx patients were positive for
just one test (histology: n=; RUT: n=; UBT: n=).
With respect to the specificity of the fqPCR it would be interesting to know
whether the additionally identified patients in the H. pylori-negative group (100
children) by the fq PCR had one positive test, or how many of those were
negative for all tests. I assume the specificity of the fqPCR will be even higher
than it is calculated from those without any positive test for H. pylori (as done for
the validation group).
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-13-7 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation of a new fluorescence quantitative PCR test for diagnosing
Helicobacter pylori infection in children
Version: 2Date:27 November 2012
Reviewer: Giulia Martina Martina Cavestro
Reviewer's report:
I thank authors for the complete dissertation. I still belive, in the study design the
PCR-based method in H pylori detection has to be compared with
immunohistochemical assay.
It is not a matter of guideline but study design.
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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-8 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Deficiency in four and one half LIM domain protein 2 (FHL2) aggravates
liver fibrosis in mice
Version: 1Date:29 August 2012
Reviewer: Pao-Hsien Chu
Reviewer's report:
FHL2-/- and wild type (wt) mice were challenged with CCl4. Fibrotic response
was qualified by qRT-PCR and IHC. FHL2 was strongly expressed in the
myofibroblasts of fibrotic human livers.
1. The major concern is without mechanism. Please provide some direct linkage
of interaction proteins or possible treatment effects.
2. The Englich writing needs to improved lots.
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:
Nil.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-8 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Deficiency in four and one half LIM domain protein 2 (FHL2) aggravates
liver fibrosis in mice
Version: 2Date:4 December 2012
Reviewer: Leo A van Grunsven
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed the comments correctly and have improved the
manuscript accordingly. I'm looking forward to see further studies showing an
important role for FHL2 in portal fibroblasts!
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-13-6 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Derangements of Liver Tissue Bioenergetics in Concanavalin A-Induced
Hepatitis
Version: 2Date:13 September 2012
Reviewer: Dechun Feng
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the authors reported an interesting finding that O2 consumption in
the liver was increased after ConA injection. The increased O2 consumption in
the liver may be attribute to the elevation of serum IFN-gamma levels but not
increased infiltration of lymphocytes as suggested.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
ConA injection may increase many cytokines expression such as IL-6,
IFN-gamma, TNF-alpha , IL-4,IL-12 and so on. The authors observed reduced
O2 consumption in IFN-gamma KO mice after ConA injection and concluded that
IFN-gamma was the main reason for the increased O2 consumption. However,
more direct evidence should be provided such as treat the mice with exogenous
IFN-gamma or treat freshly isolated hepatocytes with IFN-gamma to see whether
O2 consumption will be altered.
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-13-5 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:An analysis of online messages about probiotics
Version: 2Date:21 November 2012
Reviewer: shimon reif
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting paper assessing the quality of internet site about probiotics.
It mainly focuses on the "scientific quality of those sites". It contains many
epidemiologic data and statistical analysis and less GI clinical or basic research
information. Therefore in my opinion the paper is more suitable for publication in
an epidemiologic journal or in a general medicine journal.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-4 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Impact of Gastroesophageal Reflux on MicroRNA Expression, Location
and Function
Version: 1Date:24 October 2012
Reviewer: Andrew Feber
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript by Smith et al., "Impact of Gastroesophageal Reflux on
MicroRNA Expression, Location and Function". The authors report the
expression of a limited number of microRNAs in a small cohort of mucosa
samples from oesophageal reflux (n=10) and control patients. Through the use of
rt-pcr they show a significant difference in the expression of 3 miRNAs. They
subsequently show that over expression of these miRNAs induces decreased
proliferation and increased apoptosis. They also cells over expressing the miRNA
to be located in the basal epithelium.
The statistics appear suitable.
The data presented is of some interest, and for the first time shows the increased
expression of miRNAs in non-diseased esophageal mucossa. Although all the
analysed miRNAs have previously been shown to be unregulated in barretts
esophagus. However, the analysis has been carried out in only a small sample
cohort and further validation in an enlarged set would be highly desirable,
although not a pre-requisite for publication.
Major Compulsory Revisions
Minor Essential Revisions
1)The author need to address the figures and figure legends. At present the
figure labels not not match those in the text. Further more the the figure
particularly the ISH figures are unclear and fuzzy, higher quality images are
needed.
2) A more in depth assessment of the expression of miRNA target genes would
also be desirable.
3) Show effect on the expression of CK8, BMP4 and CK14 upon transfection of
miRNA
Discretionary Revisions
1)The mirnas identified have already been shown to be over expressed in
Barrett's esophagus, and a further detailed analysis of the role of these
microRNAs in the from reflux to barretts to malignant disease would be desirable.
2) is there any association between miRNA expression and progression to
barretts esophagus.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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-13-4 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Impact of Gastroesophageal Reflux on MicroRNA Expression, Location
and Function
Version: 1Date:4 December 2012
Reviewer: Christopher S Davis
Reviewer's report:
This study by Smith et al supports that miRNA expression is altered in
esophageal mucosa in those with ulcerative esophagitis, which is the precursor
to Barrett’s esophagus. These findings follow their earlier work which found
similar differences among those who had already developed Barrett’s
esophagus. Though the sample sizes are relatively small, the findings are
supported by in vitro data. There are minor critiques to be addressed.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. It would have been best to compare miRNA levels among controls, those with
ulcerative esophagitis, and those with Barrett’s esophagus within the same
experiment. This approach would reduce inter-study variation that may (or may
not) be present in your current investigation. For example, you previously
reported that the expression of miR-21, miR-143, miR-145, miR-194, and
miR-215 were significantly upregulated in columnar tissues. To support your
argument, one would expect these same miRNAs to be upregulated in ulcerative
esophagitis. Although this is true for miR-143, miR-145, this is not true for
miR-21, miR-194, and miR-215. Likewise you previously reported higher
expression of miR-203 and miR-205 in normal squamous epithelium, but in your
present study miR-205 is significantly higher with reflux while there is no
difference for miR-203. Can you please comment on this?
2. Why were Spearman’s correlations done online when your statistical program
(GraphPad) does this? Similarly, were tests of normality performed on these data
to guide the statistical approach? What were these?
3. You do not comment on possible therapeutic implications of your study. Are
there any? If so what are these? Even an abstract extrapolation would increase
the impact of your work. Similarly, what specific future studies should be
conducted in order to further medical knowledge in this field. Your statement in
the conclusion that “proving this will require further studies” is quite vague.
Discretionary Revisions
1. Did the biopsies have multiple freeze-thaw cycles? This could potentially alter
your results. Please comment.
2. I would suggest changing “reflux damaged” to “reflux-damaged” throughout the
manuscript.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no declaration.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-3 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Independent association of HbA1c and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in
an elderly Chinese population
Version: 1Date:11 September 2012
Reviewer: Yue Wang
Reviewer's report:
This cross-sectional study aimed to analysis the association of HbA1c with
NAFLD in an elderly Chinese population. The authors observed a significant
increase of HbA1c levels in NAFLD patients, and regression analysis showed
that increased serum HbA1c level was an independent risk factor for NAFLD.
The goal and the importance of this work are clearly stated. The data is well
presented and well argued. It is a well construed study and may be valuable for
publication after minor revision, my comments are list below.
1. The population studied includes retired employees of one company alone.
Whether this could be a representative sample of the elderly Chinese population
remains to be ascertained.
2. Most readers will not be familiar with the ultrasound diagnostic criteria
established by the Chinese Liver Disease Association for NAFLD. If it is not too
lengthy, the authors should summarize this and put the criteria in the text. This
will help the readers to understand how to diagnosis has been made.
3. It is not clear how the stepwise multivariate analysis was carried out. How
were covariates selected for inclusion and exclusion from the model?
4. A recent reference regarding prevalence and risk factors of NAFLD in the
elderly should be added:
- EM Koehler, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of non-alcoholic fatty liver
disease in the elderly: Results from the Rotterdam study. Journal of Hepatology,
in press.
5. Table 2 should include the units of the variables.
6. There are minor problems with English language.
7. Abbreviations should be explained when first used.
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 have no competing interests in relation to this paper
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-3 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Independent association of HbA1c and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in
an elderly Chinese population
Version: 2Date:25 November 2012
Reviewer: Xin Gao
Reviewer's report:
The author has answered all my comments properly. I totally agree with the
revisions.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-2 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Quantitative low mechanical index contrast-enhanced endoscopic
ultrasound for the differential diagnosis of focal pancreatic masses
Version: 1Date:29 September 2012
Reviewer: Pietro Fusaroli
Reviewer's report:
This paper reports about quantitative analysis of contrast enhanced EUS in the
differential diagnosis between pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis. While
the use of qualitative contrast enhanced EUS is widely accepted, quantitative
methods were introduced very recently in the field of contrast enhanced EUS and
very little has been reported on this topic. The authors are well respected
authorities in the field of image enhancement in EUS. The methods of this work
are solid and the data are sound.
Major compulsory revisions
1) The authors state that contrast enhanced EUS is fundamental to take major
decisions about the individual patients, e.g. to decide whether or not to perform
fine needle aspiration. However, as information from quantitative contrast
enhanced EUS are acquired in a post-production fashion, i.e. after the end of the
examination, they can’t be used to undertake real time decisions such as
deciding about performing fine needle aspiration or not. The authors should
rephrase this concept which is stated at the beginning of the discussion, and
provide alternative suggestions about the potential applications of the technique.
2) The authors state that quantitative analysis was performed on .avi files which
are not amenable to any processing unlike line data (such as dicom files). By
doing so, intensity curves might have been dependent on variables unrelated to
the pancreatic mass under investigation, such as gain settings of the ultrasound
processor. Please mention whether attention was paid to keep all image settings
identical throughout all the cases enrolled for the study. Moreover, please explain
if the technique adopted of measuring time intensity curves from two different
areas of the videos (inside and outside the lesion) was adequate to overcome
this potential limitation, i.e. to make the measurements independent from all the
original image settings.
3) It is important to know how much time is required to analyze a video and draw
the quantitative data with the software described in the study. In view of its
possible introduction into clinical practice, it is fundamental that the technique
does not add very much work after performing EUS.
Minor essential revisions
1) Background, 2nd line: please correct misspelling of “sill” in “still”
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-13-2 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Quantitative low mechanical index contrast-enhanced endoscopic
ultrasound for the differential diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic
adenocarcinoma
Version: 2Date:12 November 2012
Reviewer: Michael Hocke
Reviewer's report:
I recommend to accept the paper in the present form.
Level of interest: An exceptional article
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-13-1 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Influence of HRH2 promoter polymorphism on aberrant DNA methylation of
DAPK and CDH1 in the gastric epithelium
Version: 1Date:31 July 2012
Reviewer: Michiro Otaka
Reviewer's report:
Authors have investigated the relationship between HRH2 promoter
polymorphism and DNA methylation of DAPK and CDH1 in non-cancerous
gastric epithelium. They demonstrated differences in DNA methylation status
between gastric cancer patients and non-cancerous subjects. The study is well
designed and results are interesting.
Please discuss or show some data, if possible, before publication.
General
1) In both GC and non-GC subjects, are there any difference in use of gastric
acid suppressant such as PPI or H2RA?
2) Authors should describe about endoscopic findings in the subjects (gastric
ulcer and/or duodenal ulcers).
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest 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-13-1 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Influence of HRH2 promoter polymorphism on aberrant DNA methylation of
DAPK and CDH1 in the gastric epithelium
Version: 2Date:1 October 2012
Reviewer: Lasse Sommer Kristensen
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
As pointed out in my previous report the authors found that the GG homozygote
displayed no significant risk for DAPK methylation in subjects with GC (Table 4).
The same was also true for CDH1 (Table 5). Nevertheless, this is not mentioned
in the abstract or in the conclusion. No data was provided to support a functional
role of the methylation of the genes, which were detected using a
non-quantitative method. In addition, no data was provided to show a functional
role of the SNP. Finally, only non-neoplastic tissue was included in the study, and
the authors did not investigate whether the methylation in these tissues reflect
the methylation in neoplastic cells from the same patients.
Minor Essential revisions
There are still some sentences and typos which need to be corrected. For
instance, page 10, line 4 ("bislufite-modification" should be
"bisulfite-modification"), page 10 line 6 ("1 minutes" should be "1 minute"), and
page 18, line 17 ("almost GC patients" should be "almost all GC patients").
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-13-1 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Influence of HRH2 promoter polymorphism on aberrant DNA methylation of
DAPK and CDH1 in the gastric epithelium
Version: 3Date:12 November 2012
Reviewer: Lasse Sommer Kristensen
Reviewer's report:
Minor revisions
Data of gene methylation in cancer lesions of 115 subjects with GC were
included in the study. The abstract has, however, not been updated accordingly.
Several grammatical errors still exists in the manuscript, which need to be
corrected. Some examples:
Page 16, line 13: “The mechanism of carcinogenesis via gene methylation has
been still unclear” should be “”… gene methylation is still unclear”.
Page 16, line 14: “we pay an attention to the fact” should be “we pay attention to
the fact”
In several places in the text it may be better to use “frequency” instead of “ratio”.
Page 16, line 3: “corresponded to a risk” should be “corresponded to an
increased risk”
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-13-123 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Leukocytosis and high hematocrit levels yield misinterpretation in
abdominal emergency of hereditary angioedema (HAE)
Version: 6Date:20 February 2013
Reviewer: laurence bouillet
Reviewer's report:
Good work and interesting paper.
The title is not good: you have to change it. For example, "laboratory findings
during abdominal attacks of hereditary AE."
Correction key words: C1Inhibitor concentrate...
Abstract: must be corrected by a native English speaker.
Background: I don't understand "sporadic local angioedema"; you have to
change it.
Results:
Can you write int he text the median of C4 and C1inh levels?
I would like to know if you have searched correlation between biological findings
and clinical data?
Can you give some statistical correlation between severity of attack and WBC
count and hematocrit level? Or attack duration or….
Have you found a correlation between elevation of hematocrit and the presence
of ascitis, or vomiting?
.
Figure 2: can you note p between “no attack” and “other parts” (WBC) and others
parts and abdomen (for Hct)
Discussion
In the literature, some authors proposed that elevation of hematocrit could be
associated with attack’s severity .
The main point is that CRP is normal so you have to propose that in case of
leukocytosis without CRP elevation, HAE attack must be evoked.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest 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.