JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0352-9 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses:
22-gauge aspiration versus 25-gauge biopsy needles
Version:1Date:29 June 2015
Reviewer: Andrada Seicean
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revision
1.This is a retrospective comparative study of the usefulness of 22G needle and
25G needle in the EUS-FNA of the pancreatic masses. A previous metaanalysis
showed that there is a non-significant differences in sensitivity (78% vs 91%),
and 100% specificity, with no difference in the number of passes or complications
(Affolter et al. Dig Dis Sci 2013), which is consistent with the presented results.
The reported diagnostic accuracy for core histology specimens is 45% for the
25G needles (Sakamoto et al 2009) and 60 to 87% for the 22G
needles(Sakamoto 2009, Ramesh 2015, Bang 2012). In the present study, the
diagnostic accuracy by using the 22G needle was only 34%. Please explain.
2. Methodology problems. “The number of needle passes for obtaining
histological specimen was limited to 2 to prevent procedure-related
complications” Please give details on the presumed complications or explain why
there were 5 passes for cytology and only 2 for histology. This could conduct to
unreliable conclusions.
Minor essential revision
1.Please define “ macroscopically sufficient material “ for histological evaluation
Discretionary revision
1.Please insert 22G group and 25G group in the table 2.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0351-x (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Esophagogastroduodenal pneumatosis with subsequent pneumoporta and
intramural duodenal hematoma after endoscopic hemostasis: a case report
Version:2Date:26 June 2015
Reviewer: Chao-Hung Kuo
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. On page 6 paragraph 2 Intramural duodenal hematoma of this patient resolved
after 6 days post the event. Did you administer any parenteral/oral hemostatic
agent during 6 days? Is there any medication such as hemostatic
agent(Tranexamic acid, Desmopressin...) helpful for treating the hematoma?
2. On page 9, paragraph 2 As you stated you suspected warfarin-associated
coagulopathy precipitated the formation of intramural duodenal hematoma.
Could you propose the suggested hemostatic method for bleeding duodenal
ulcer if the patient is under warfarin treatment? If so maybe we could
prevent the possible complication such as intramural hematoma.
3. In abstract section Case presentation, you used the abbreviation of IDH for
Intramural Duodenal Hematoma but you did not define it before the section yet.
We suggested you define it at prior paragraph.
4. There are some spelling mistakes about Pneumatosis in the manuscript. You
mis-spelled it as Pneumoatosis. Please rectify them.
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/s12876-015-0351-x (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Esophagogastroduodenal pneumatosis with subsequent pneumoporta and
intramural duodenal hematoma after endoscopic hemostasis: a case report
Version:2Date:28 June 2015
Reviewer: Seng-Kee Chuah
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
It is still not clear why the patient did not receive surgery? This paper sounds like
encouraging suppertive medical treatment in such a serious complication. It
needs to be clarify on this point in the discussion section for surgery vs. medical
supportive treatment. This could be crucial for readers.
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 interest
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0350-y (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Gastric Outlet Obstruction from Metastatic Lobular Breast Carcinoma
Version:3Date:2 June 2015
Reviewer: Nesrin Ugras
Reviewer's report:
There were some revisions for this text.
1) In abstract part the author use “GOO” abbreviations.
2) The author used for diagnosis “lobular breast adenocarcinoma”.
Adenocarcinoma must be carcinoma in all text.
3) In case presentation part the histopathological and #mmuohistochemistry
findings must revised by a pathologist.
4) The author should be used new printed references .And conclusion part need
revision with new findings.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0350-y (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Gastric Outlet Obstruction from Metastatic Lobular Breast Carcinoma
Version:3Date:16 June 2015
Reviewer: Manju Chandrasegaram
Reviewer's report:
I am not sure oestrogen receptor positivity alone can guarantee the diagnosis of
metastatic lobular breast cancer – several upper GI cancers including
oesophageal cancer can express oestrogen receptors – so the diagnosis of
lobular breast cancer histologically needs to be expanded through other findings
as illustrated in the figures. Oestrogen receptor positivity is also found in normal
liver, and benign liver tumours.
In the background causes of gastric outlet obstruction, peptic ulcer disease as a
broad category should be included, as this is more common than gallstone as a
cause.
line 13 page 2 – referred to the gastroenterology team or unit rather than the
specialty line 14 GERD – acronym not previously defined in the text line 18 seen
by the oncology team or unit rather than the specialty line 23 EGD not previously
defined
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0347-6 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Epithelial to Mesenchimal transition in the liver field: the double face of
Everolimus in vitro
Version:2Date:8 April 2015
Reviewer: Itxarone Bilbao
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary revisions
The real roll of Everolimus on HCC is of outstanding merit and interest in the field
of oncology and also in the field of liver transplantation. The initial introduction of
Everolimus in the field of transplantation was at higher doses than used in clinical
practice and the doses that are recommended at present time. So the manuscript
should be useful to search an adequate dosing. The methodology is appropriate
and well described. The data exposition, the figures, the discussion and
conclusions are adequately supported by the data. The manuscript is well written
and easily understandable.
Translation from laboratory cells experiments or from small laboratory animals to
humans is very complex, especially in hepatocellular carcinoma. In that sense I
would suggest to mention this limitation in the discussion:
1.- What we name “hepatocellular carcinoma” is a variety of complex tumors that
probably employ several pathways in the different carcinogenesis phases:
initiation, promotion and expansion and also in the different phases of underlying
tissue (normal liver, fibrotic liver, cirrhotic liver). Among all these variations the
authors has tested only one type of liver cancer cells in one particular phase,
which could not be reproducible with other hepatocarcinoma developed in a
different patient with a different underlying liver disease stage.
2.- Laboratory cell experimental trials in my opinion are good models to study the
genetics of cancer, but no to study the epigenetic surrounding the
carcinogenesis. Please mention this limitation in the discussion
3.- Translation from small laboratory animals to human, should be reassured with
clinical trials. Perhaps the hepatic stellate cells on normal rats have not the same
behavior as HSC on cirrhotic human’s beings.
In summary, I would recommend to add in the discussion, comments on the
paper from Bugelski PJ with an excellent review about preclinical approaches,
evaluating the impact of immunosuppressive drugs on carcinogenesis
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:
Conflict of interest: I have received funding to assist different national and
international congress from Novartis, Astellas, Pfizer and Roche
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0348-5 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Validation of coding algorithms for the identification of patients hospitalized
for alcoholic hepatitis using administrative data
Version:1Date:1 March 2015
Reviewer: Peter Jepsen
Reviewer's report:
Pang et al. have examined the coding accuracy of ICD10 diagnoses of alcoholic
hepatitis (AH). This is an important topic, and the manuscript is very well written.
My main concern is that I need to understand WHY the PPV of the AH code is so
low.
* As it is said in the introduction, AH is clinical syndrome characterized by rapid
onset og jaundice following heavy alcohol intake. No other signs and symptoms
are required, except that it is necessary to rule out other causes of jaundice. So,
despite the claim that the diagnostic criteria are lenient, they may still be too
strict. Personally, I think that normal AST/ALT and INR are perfectly compatible
with a diagnosis of AH, and smaller alcohol amounts can also cause AH. It would
be very informative if you could also present the PPV with less strict criteria for
AH.
* Most importantly, readers need to know the correct diagnosis in the patients
who did in fact not have AH. In my experience, decompensated cirrhosis,
infection, gallstone disease, and other causes of acute hepatitis are the most
common differential diagnoses. What proportion of patients had these diseases?
Or were the wrong AH diagnoses in fact random typos, and patients had a
disease that does not at all resemble AH?
* There must have been some patients who were described in the medical
records as having "obvious AH", or something to that effect. How were such
patients handled if they did not fulfill your diagnostic criteria? Remember that AH
is a CLINICAL SYNDROME, and you can't see the patient!
* You had three different investigators examine each of 21 patients to assess
inter-rater agreement. But what was there to disagree about, considering your
explicit diagnostic criteria?
* On page 8, top, it is quite confusing that you mention the UNconfirmed cases
first in the parentheses.
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/s12876-015-0348-5 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Validation of coding algorithms for the identification of patients hospitalized
for alcoholic hepatitis using administrative data
Version:1Date:13 April 2015
Reviewer: Ankur Srivastava
Reviewer's report:
Summary:
Dr Pang and colleagues have presented a retrospective observational study with
the primary objective of validating hospital database dependent coding
algorithms for identification of patients hospitalized for autoimmune hepatitis (AH)
to guide reliability of relevant epidemiologic studies. There is no control group
and the diagnostic criteria for AH is purposively inclusive as acknowledged by the
authors (line 280). The conclusions suggest that hospital coding for AH is
sub-optimal, although can be optimized by limiting to patients with AH in the
primary diagnosis field. They suggest that the use of administrative data in
epidemiologic studies of AH should be undertaken cautiously.
1. Major Compulsory Revisions: Nil
2. Minor Essential Revisions: nil
3. Discretionary Revisions
My only significant suggestion relates to the important conclusion (line 240)
which states that the PPV improves to 89% when AH is recorded in the primary
search field. I personally feel this is a very important (and predictable) finding and
the authors may wish to highlight the importance of this fact in their abstracts and
conclusions (not mentioned in the conclusion) as this has important implications
for the methodology of those conducting epidemiologic studies in the future.
Additional comments:
Overall, this was an interesting paper to review and highlighted the difficulties
that can be encountered when using administrative databases to develop
epidemiologic data. The research question is easily identified (line 72) and the
primary objective is to validate coding algorithms for the identification of patients
hospitalized for AH using administrative data. The research question can be
considered useful for those that conduct epidemiologic studies and also
highlights to those that are not so familiar with these studies the caution required
with administrative data based studies. The methods appear to be appropriate.
The question with this type of study relating to AH will always relate to the
diagnostic criteria of AH, but the authors have used established criteria for the
diagnosis and appropriately referenced the source for this. There is no control
group, and this is acknowledged by the authors several times in the manuscript.
The interpretation of the results is well balanced, and unbiased. There is due
recognition of the limitations of the study and there is appropriate referencing.
The article was easy to read and the quality of written English was acceptable.
The authors have made relevant declarations. There appears to be no ethical or
competing interests issues.
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/s12876-015-0348-5 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Validation of coding algorithms for the identification of patients hospitalized
for alcoholic hepatitis using administrative data
Version:2Date:22 June 2015
Reviewer: Peter Jepsen
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the revised manuscript. I like it better than the original one, and I
have no major comments. I do, however, have a few follow-up discretionary
comments for the authors to consider.
* I asked how you handled patients described as having 'obvious AH', and you
replied that patients who did not fulfill the diagnostic criteria were always defined
as having 'not AH'. If so, I think it should be stated in the methods section that
patients with missing information on the 5 diagnostic items were considered 'not
AH'.
* I also think that it would be valuable to have information about the correct
diagnosis in the other 106 - 31 = 75 patients who did not have AH. Some of these
must have had an 'uncertain diagnosis', and they might be considered AH
patients in a sensitivity analysis. My reasoning is this: If you're not certain what
the correct diagnosis is, you should have more confidence in the clinician who
was with the patient at the time. He or she DID believe that the patient had AH.
* Continuing from my previous comment, I am not familiar with the term "remote
AH".
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/s12876-015-0348-5 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Validation of coding algorithms for the identification of patients hospitalized
for alcoholic hepatitis using administrative data
Version:2Date:6 July 2015
Reviewer: Ankur Srivastava
Reviewer's report:
I have had the opportunity to review the comments of my fellow reviewer.
I thank Dr Pang and colleagues for updating the manuscript and for answering
the queries. With respect to my initial review, I have no more to add. Additionally,
the changes implemented by the authors are acceptable.
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/s12876-015-0346-7 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effects of acotiamide on esophageal motor function and gastroesophageal
reflux in healthy volunteers
Version:2Date:31 May 2015
Reviewer: Kei Matsueda
Reviewer's report:
I have reviewed the manuscript entitled “ Effect of acotiamide on esophageal
motor function and gastroesophageal reflux in healthy volunteers “ and my
comments are as follows:
Authors adopted cross over protocol in this study, however HRM and MII-pH are
the stressful tests and may influence outcome of the second study.
They also did not use placebo, but GI motility could be altered via brain-gut axis.
Therefore, it is better to select parallel-group studies with placebo to eliminate the
above mentioned problems and to define the drug efficacy.
Nevertheless, this study was worth to publish because this is the first study
showing acotiamide does not enhance esophageal motor functions or prevent
GERD events in humans, and the following data may support the author’s
conclusions.
Several studies have shown that acotiamide does not enhance gastric emptying
in healthy volunteers but enhance in FD patients (1,2). In animal studies, the
similar results were reported (3).
1) Adam B et al. Z-338 improves meal-induced symptoms in functional
dyspepsia: double
blind, randomized, placebo controlled crossover study. Gastroenterology 2009;
136:A 535
2) Zai H et al. Effect of acotiamide on gastric emptying in healthy adult humans.
3) Seto K et al. Acotiamide hydrochloride (Z-338), a novel prokinetic agent,
restores delayed gastric emptying and feeding inhibition induced by restrain
stress in rats. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2008;20:1052-9
GER, gastroesophageal reflux was not listed in List of Abbreviations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kei Matsueda, MD, PhD
Director: Sakura Life Clinic
1-14-7-2F Kinshi Sumida Tokyo 130-0013
Japan
Tel: 81-3-3625-5547 Fax: 81-3-5819-2258
e-mail: matsueda@slclinic.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 been a speaker and honoraria recipient for Zeria Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd
and Astellas Pharma Inc.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0346-7 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effects of acotiamide on esophageal motor function and gastroesophageal
reflux in healthy volunteers
Version:2Date:31 May 2015
Reviewer: Kenji Nagahama
Reviewer's report:
This is a nicely written paper summarizing the results of studies assessing the
effects of acotiamide on esophageal motor functions and gastroesophageal
reflux.
However, several issues discussed below need clarification.
Discretionary Revisions:
1) (There are no comments.)
Minor Essential Revisions:
1) Throughout the manuscript. “empting” is misspelled.
2) Abstract-Background (p 3, line 8). Indication of acotiamide (i.e., for the
treatment of functional dyspepsia (FD)) is unclear.
3) Abstract-Conclusions (p 4, line 3). Drug classification of acotiamide may be
better understood as a novel gastrointestinal motility modulator (not gastric)
based on pharmacological feature.
4) Background (p 5, line 4). Please add space between “5-10%” and “in”.
5) Background (p 6, line 2). Enrolled subjects in the present study (i.e., healthy
adults) are unclear.
6) Method-Study Protocol (p 7, line 19). Detailed information of acotiamide is
insufficient. Please add product information (e.g., product name, manufacturer).
7) Discussion (p 15, line 4 and 6). Please reconfirm the use of a term “GERD”.
8) Discussion (p 18, line 11)- larger studies of FD patients with GERD symptoms.
It is known that there is considerable overlap of symptoms among patients with
FD and GERD. Please refer to this point within the manuscript.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1) (There are no comments.)
I hope these comments will be helpful.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0341-z (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:The Distribution of jhp0940, jhp0945, jhp0947, jhp0949 and jhp0951 genes
of Helicobacter pylori in China
Version:2Date:6 July 2015
Reviewer: Javed Yakoob
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, Yanan Gong and coauthors studied the prevalence of the
plasticity region genes of the H. pylori strains in China. The aim of this study was
to examine the status of the of Helicobacter pylori plasticity region genes and
assess the relationship between the genes and the diseases caused by H. pylori
infection. A total of 141 strains were isolated from patients with chronic active
gastritis, peptic ulcer disease and gastric carcinoma. The prevalence of jhp0940,
jhp0945, 53 jhp0947, jhp0949 and jhp0951 was determined using PCR, and the
results were analyzed using the chi-squared test.
Major comments:
1. Lack of comparison between the distribution of the plasticity region genes of
the H. pylori strains in China and its neighboring countries. Sugimoto M, et al. J
Clin Microbiol 2012 Feb; 50(2): 441–448; Kausar F, et al. J Clin Microbiol. 2005
Apr; 43(4): 1538–1545; Yakoob J, et al. Gut Liver. 2010 September; 4(3):
345–350.
2. Sequencing of the genes would have added strength to the study and further
helped in comparison with the local and regional H. pylori strains.
3. Other H. pylori virulence marker such as cagA, vacA alleles were not studied
that are also associated with the H. pylori associated diseases and would have
further contributed to understanding of hyperplastic region genes association with
complications.
Minor Comments
Results
From lines 153 to 158 on page 7 and 8, results can be presented under a
separate subheading of “geographical variation of hyperplastic region genes”.
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/s12876-015-0341-z (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:The Distribution of jhp0940, jhp0945, jhp0947, jhp0949 and jhp0951 genes
of Helicobacter pylori in China
Version:2Date:10 July 2015
Reviewer: Gokben Ozbey
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript describes the distribution of jhp0940, jhp0945, jhp0947, jhp0949
and jhp0951 genes of Helicobacter pylori in China. The subject is interesting of a
rather important public health issue. I believe this study lays the foundation for
future studies and also contributes to the epidemiological survey of this important
pathogen worldwide. However, some issues have to be addressed before the
manuscript can be published:
1- How was DNA extracted from the isolates? Was it from colonies or from liquid
cultures? Please provide this information.
2- A representative photograph of the PCR agarose gel should be included as a
figure.
3- Authors did not mentioned the amount of primer for PCR.
4- Authors should be removed the abbreviations at the beginning of a paragraph
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/s12876-015-0341-z (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:The Distribution of jhp0940, jhp0945, jhp0947, jhp0949 and jhp0951 genes
of Helicobacter pylori in China
Version:3Date:25 August 2015
Reviewer: Javed Yakoob
Reviewer's report:
Authors have adequately addressed all the points.
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' below
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0345-8 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Massive pneumoretroperitoneum complicated with emphysematous
cholecystitis: A case report and the literature review
Version:3Date:6 July 2015
Reviewer: Michael Pitiakoudis
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
1. Please use no abbreviations in the abstract such as EC and CT, according to
journal's instructions.
2. While going through your manuscript, I was not able to locate any data to
support that you did not perform an abdominal ultrasound but you preferred an
abdominal x-ray and CT instead. Ultrasound is the most common imaging
modality currently employed to visualize the gallbladder, especially those patients
with the clinical suspicion of acute cholecystitis. This modality helps detect acute
emphysematous cholecystitis earlier than plain abdominal radiography and
identifies the condition in 90-95% of cases. Also, ultrasound can estimate the
exact stage of this disorder.
3. Did you manage to stabilize the patient with fluid replacement and immediate
use of antibiotics before the surgery as you mentioned that the patient was
diagnosed with sepsis?
4. It is not clear why was the patient transferred to another hospital after his
recovery? Was any other complication induced by the patient's management?
5. Please provide an histological figure if it is possible.
Minor essential revisions
1. On page 1 - line 9, it would be preferable as ''authors' emails'' or ''email
addresses''.
2. Please indicate the corresponding author with *.
3. Please add the normal ranges of the laboratory tests that you present.
4. On page 4 - line 15, please write 26,800/µL.
6. Please complete the references 6,11,17 according to the journal's style.
7. Please add if there are any competing interests.
Discretionary revisions
1. The title should probably be more representative.
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/s12876-015-0345-8 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Massive pneumoretroperitoneum complicated with emphysematous
cholecystitis: A case report and the literature review
Version:3Date:23 July 2015
Reviewer: Thiago Nunes
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1-) I noticed the absence of differential diagnoses of pneumoretroperitoneo and
pneumoperitoneum. Please adjust.
2-) Extending the discussion on the image for findings
3-) There is no surgical treatment option for the case? Interventional Radiology?
An elderly patient it and risks to the traditional surgical procedure.
4-) Abdomen ultrasound could help in this case? Discuss this topic.
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/s12876-015-0344-9 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Utility of serum des-gamma-carboxyprothrombin in the diagnosis of
hepatocellular carcinoma among Nigerians, a case-control study.
Version:2Date:11 March 2015
Reviewer: Chad Hall
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
None
Minor Essential Revisions
None
Discretionary Revisions
1. The introduction could be supported with more background information on
DCP. A few comments were made in the discussion, but more historical
information about how it was found and its current use in clinical practice would
help clarify the purpose of the study.
2. How were patients chosen for the benign liver disease population? More
specifically, why include one patient with an amoebic abscess, one with a hepatic
cyst and one with acute hepatitis? These processes do not have similar
physiology to viral hepatitis and are less likely to result in cirrhosis. Does
including these conditions alter the results of the control group?
3. What determined which imaging modality was used for patients in the study?
Can more information be given about who received a CT or an ultrasound?
4. How has this study changed your clinical practice? Is DCP used regularly to
diagnose your patients with HCC? Should DCP be used in conjuction with AFP?
Comments on your clinical practice would be interesting in the discussion.
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/s12876-015-0344-9 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Utility of serum des-gamma-carboxyprothrombin in the diagnosis of
hepatocellular carcinoma among Nigerians, a case-control study.
Version:2Date:29 May 2015
Reviewer: Laurent Ehrlich
Reviewer's report:
This article focuses on the merits of an alternative diagnostic/prognostic serum
tumor marker for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The current gold standard is
AFP, however some reports indicate better sensitivity and specificity with
des-gamma-carbosyprothrombin (DCP). This study evaluates the quality of both
serum markers in a black population from Nigeria. They measured both DCP and
AFP levels in 62 HCC patients and 60 patients with benign liver diseases that
can sometimes mimic HCC. The authors used the newest, most sensitive test for
detecting DCP in the serum
Discretionary revisions.
1. How did HCC cases breakdown? Primary cancers or secondary? Did the
cancers metastasize? Hep B was most common etiologic factor. Was there
significant difference in AFP and DCP values for HCC cases not caused by Hep
B?
2. Was there a correlation between DCP values and the presence of multiple
hepatic tumors?
3. Could DCP be more specific to males instead of females?
4. Literature suggests that while DCP is more specific then AFP, AFP remains
more sensitive. This is not the case in this study. Why do you think that is?
5. DCP is a prothrombin-precursor. Are there dietary considerations in Nigerian
culture that could affect these levels? Or individual patient medications?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0338-7 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Activation of the Prostaglandin D2 metabolic pathway in Crohn's disease:
involvement of the enteric nervous system
Version:3Date:21 April 2015
Reviewer: Manolis Roulis
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript Anne-Gaelle Le Loupp and coworkers examine the activation
of the PGD2 pathway in CD patients with colonic involvement and also
investigate the role of the enteric nervous system as a cellular source of PGD2 in
CD. By analyzing human samples and also employing primary ENS cultures and
neuro-glial co-cultures the authors provide evidence for the following:
1. Gene expression levels of key enzymes for PGD2 synthesis, such as cPLA2,
COX1, COX2 and L-PGDS are increased in the colon of patients with active CD
compared to either matched non-inflamed tissues or tissues from patients with
quiescent CD or tissues from healthy control tissues.
2. PGD2 levels are increased in the inflamed colon of patients with active CD
compared to matched non-inflamed tissues.
3. LPGDS expression is detected in human myenteric and submucosal plexi.
4. LPGDS expression is detected in primary ENS cultures from rats.
5. LPS induces PGD2 secretion by primary primary rat neurons or glial cells
isolated from rats. Treatment with an LPGDS-specific inhibitor abolishes this
induction.
The scientific question addressed in this manuscript is clearly defined, the
experimental procedures well-described and the main conclusions of the study
justified based on the data presented. The authors also discuss their findings
with regard to current relevant literature in the field and the manuscript is clearly
written.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Figure 4: The origin of the tissues used for LPGDS staining (healthy or CD)
and n= information should be mentioned in the legend. Did the authors compare
healthy vs CD tissues for LPGDS expression by immunostaining? This
comparison would help clarify whether the increased LPGDS gene expression
measured in inflamed CD tissues (Fig.2E) results from the activation of the ENS
or it is sth secondary to the accumulation of inflammatory cells in the tissue.
2. The authors conclude in the abstract that “Our study suggests that the ENS is
involved in CD p a t h o g e n e s i s through PGD2 pathway”. Since the
functional role of PGD2 activation in the inflamed gut (pathogenic or homeostatic)
has not been directly addressed in this study, this conclusion should be
rephrased.
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/s12876-015-0340-0 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Fibroblast activation protein-alpha-expressing fibroblasts promote the
progression of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
Version:1Date:25 May 2015
Reviewer: Julia Tchou
Reviewer's report:
This study sought to understand the tumor promoting role of fibroblast activation
protein (FAP) in pancreatic cancer. The authors evaluated FAP expression by
IHC in a panel of human pancreatic cancer (n=48) and correlated clinical
outcome with moderate and strong FAP (+) IHC staining defined arbitrarily by the
number of stromal cells staining positive by IHC. The authors also reported that
FAP expressing NIH3T3 fibroblasts promoted pancreatic cancer cell invasion
using an modified chamber invasion assays. None of these findings are novel.
The authors did demonstrate that co-culture of FAP(+) NIH3T3 fibroblasts with
pancreatic cancer cells decrease proportion of cells G0/G1 phase and increased
proportion of S/G2/M phase is associated with phosphorylation of retinoblastoma
protein. The study is descriptive and additional experiments are necessary to
further dissect this observation such as:
Major compulsory revisions
1. Are conditioned media from FAP+ NIH 3T3 sufficient to drive the increased
level of P-Rb?
2. Gene expression profile differences in FAP+ NIH 3T3 vs. FAP- NIH 3T3 to
identify candidate mediators of the Rb phosphorylation.
3. Will knockdown of Rb abrogate the effects of FAP+ NIH3T3?
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/s12876-015-0343-x (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Volume, distribution and acidity of gastric secretion on and off proton pump
inhibitor treatment: A randomized double-blind controlled study in patients with
gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) and healthy subjects
Version:1Date:30 June 2015
Reviewer: Giovanni Sarnelli
Reviewer's report:
Major:
This is a well conducted study addressing the pathophysiological role and the
potential therapeuthic implications of acid pocket in GERD. Using a combined
pH-metry and MRI study before and after PPI the authors showed that the
distribution of gastric secretions in the stomach is abnormal in GERD patients
and resulted in prolonged exposure of the EGJ to unbuffered gastric secretions,
likely associated to postprandial GERD-symptoms.
Minor:
I understand that the simultaneous assessment of pH-metry and MRI is
technically difficult, but this represent a point of weakness. The authors should
further comment this point in the discussion and tone down their results.
Given the great progress of the MRI technique do the authors have any data
magnetic resonance spectroscopy ? If not this should reported as a potential
future application.
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/s12876-015-0343-x (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Volume, distribution and acidity of gastric secretion on and off proton pump
inhibitor treatment: A randomized double-blind controlled study in patients with
gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) and healthy subjects
Version:1Date:2 July 2015
Reviewer: Nicola de Bortoli
Reviewer's report:
This is a very interesting paper and really innovative in this field.
It is rare to find article well designed and written as it is.
I''ve no comment for the author.
ACCEPTED
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:
None
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0343-x (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Volume, distribution and acidity of gastric secretion on and off proton pump
inhibitor treatment: A randomized double-blind controlled study in patients with
gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) and healthy subjects
Version:1Date:10 July 2015
Reviewer: michele cicala
Reviewer's report:
In this interesting investigation, the Authors aimed at assessing MRI technique to
visualize
and quantify volume and distribution of the acid pocket in healthy volunteers and
in patients with GERD, before and following high dose PPI therapy given for one
week. The design of the study
is correct, the main findings were a significant reduction of secretion volumes and
secretion layers
and a reduced contact time between secretions and EGJ following PPI, both in
patients and healthy subjects. MRI technique appears to be accurate in the
quantitative assessment of acid pocket and a promising tool for future trials on
novel drugs.
Some minor comments are:
GERD Patients were either affected by erosive esophagitis or uncomplicated,
although confirmed by pH test, disease. How many of them belonged to the
erosive population?
Similarly, findings of the symptom scores are not reported following placebo.
Besides the position - right decubitus - in which patients were investigated,
another limitation of this study is the test meal (pure liquid), both are
unphysiologic conditions.
Finally, the different distribution of gastric secretions within the proximal stomach
in GERD patients vs healthy subjects may be due, apart from different
morphology, to different motility of the proximal stomach in the two groups.
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/s12876-015-0339-6 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation of dual-wavelength excitation autofluorescence imaging of
colorectal tumours with a high-sensitivity CMOS imager: a cross-sectional study
Version:1Date:8 April 2015
Reviewer: Zhen Tian
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions:
I have two major concerns. One is about the efficacy gain of this dual-wavelength
excitation autofluorescence imaging method. The other is about the reliability of
the findings.
For my first concern: the authors claim that the big disadvantage of the AFI
method is its high false-positive rate and low specificity of 35%. 15-32% of
colorectal adenomas were missed by colonoscopy. That’s the major motivation
for the authors to develop a new imager and propose to use dual wavelength
excitation method. While, in their results, 86.2% of the Adenoma/M-ca ratio
images were considered as high signal group. Compared to the 15% value
mentioned above for AFI, the new method doesn’t show much improvement in
sensitivity (true positive rate). On the other hand, the authors didn’t do any
experiments and analysis on the false positive rate and true negative rate for the
new method. Without these values, I cannot reach the conclusion that the new
method outperforms the AFI method in order to justify the relevance of this
manuscript.
For my second concern: The ratio images were categorized into high signal
images and no signal images by only one gastroenterologist. What’s the intensity
threshold the gastroenterologist used to differentiate the high signal images and
no signal images? Whether a very different category result may be achieved by
another gastroenterologist? If a similar result cannot be repeated by another
gastroenterologist, then the analysis and conclusion based on this result is not
reliable.
Minor essential revisions:
Line 157: “Clinicians are able image colorectal lesions in detail”. There should be
a grammar mistake. Consider revising this sentence.
Line 200: “can be emitted light using …” should be “can emit light …”
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.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0339-6 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation of dual-wavelength excitation autofluorescence imaging of
colorectal tumours with a high-sensitivity CMOS imager: a cross-sectional study
Version:1Date:9 June 2015
Reviewer: Elena V Filonenko
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct).
The manuscript is dedicated to evaluation of dual-wavelength excitation
autofluorescence imaging of colorectal tumours with a high-sensitivity CMOS
imager.
I have issues I would like addressed:
1. 34 and further as the text goes. In order to facilitate comprehension of the
work the group of lesions should be renamed: adenoma/M-ca into
adenoma+M-ca or adenoma and M-ca, SSA/Ps into SSA+Ps or SSA and Ps.
2.34 vs 91 and further as the text goes. In the text both “Ps” and “P” are used,
one variant should be chosen.
3. 36-37. The specimens were irradiated with excitation light at 365 nm and 405
nm, and autofluorescence images were obtained using a new, high-sensitivity
CMOS imager. It is necessary to represent the wavelength in which
autofluorescence registration was performed using high-sensitivity CMOS
imager.
4. 91. The sentence should be written as “adenocarcinoma (M-ca), adenoma,
and sessile serrated adenoma (SSA), polyp (P) specimens”.
5. 101. The study included 98 patients. However, authors indicated that there
were 64 men and 36 women, (n=100).
6. 171. There is misspelling: “u” in the word “florescence” is missed.
7. 220. Literature older than 5 year is 75,7% of given references, thus do not
reflect the realty of modern colon cancer diagnosis (inc. fluorescence diagnosis),
and given statistics may not correspond to up-to-date situation.
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/s12876-015-0339-6 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation of dual-wavelength excitation autofluorescence imaging of
colorectal tumours with a high-sensitivity CMOS imager: a cross-sectional study
Version:2Date:8 July 2015
Reviewer: Zhen Tian
Reviewer's report:
The authors have propoerly responded to my comments and added more one
experiment to investigate the interobserver agreement. I think the revised version
is of good quality for publish.
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/s12876-015-0336-9 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Polymorphisms of the PRLHR, HSPA12A and Risk of Gastric Cancer,
Colorectal Cancer in the Chinese Han Population
Version:2Date:1 July 2015
Reviewer: Arseniy Yuzhalin
Reviewer's report:
Su et al. performed a study analyzing the role of gene polymorphisms within the
PRLHR and HSPA12A genes and the risk of gastric and colorectal cancer.
Major compulsory revisions:
HSPs cannot be expressed on cell surface, as these are secreted proteins.
During statistical analysis, how did authors account on multiple comparisons?
Either FDR or Bonferroni correction must be included in statistical analysis in
order to do a proper comparison.
The authors should provide evidence of the functional impact of these SNPs, i.e.
if they alter protein expression levels or not. Please provide references for each
SNPs to justify the choice of these SNPs of million others polymorphisms.
The manuscript should be carefully spell checked. For example: "Tabel 1.
Demographic of gastric cancer cancers, colorectal cancers and controls",
"Genetype", etc.
Table 4 is incomplete. The authors report the analysis of 7 SNPs in 7 genes, but
table 4 contains only 2 SNPs. Also, the actual figures representing how many
patients had a particular genotype should be included (see PMID: 25213166 for
reference)
Can authors also provide information about how these SNPs correlate with
clinical features of the patients included in the analysis?
The study lacks synthesis and is pretty boring to read
Level of interest: An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a
scientific/medical journal
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests' below