JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-27 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Effects of abdominal hot compresses on indocyanine green elimination - a randomized cross over Title: 
study in healthy subjects 
 3  7 March 2007 Version: Date: 
 Daniel De Backer Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
The authors have addressed many of the comments but I have some points left: 
1/ In their answer to reveiwers’ comments, the authors answered positively to my question whether changes 
in ICG PDR may be detected when already normal at baseline. However, this was not implemented in the 
manuscript, as the text mentions that circadian fluctuations may exist and that drugs may affect it, but the direction of the changes is not specified and one may expect that it can only be altered but not further increased. Your sentence should clearly state that it can further increase (what you may expect if the 
intervention increases blood flow). 
2/ The fact that liver enzymes are normal does not rule out that function and flow may evolve in opposite 
way. Please remind that ICG pdr is affected in patients with sepsis well before enzymes become altered. 
3/ You now mention that heat compress application was accompanied by a feeling of relaxation so that all 
patients felt asleep. This may markedly affect PDR. Indeed, splanchnic blood flow decreases during sleep, so that you may expect PDR to decrease (unless there are opposite changes in function, but as function 
was normal at baseline it can no more increase). Hence the stability in ICG PDR along with changes in 
arousal may suggest that splanchnic blood flow was indeed increased by application of compress. This 
needs to be discussed 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests' below
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-27 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Effects of abdominal hot compresses on indocyanine green elimination - a randomized cross over Title: 
study in healthy subjects 
 4  30 April 2007 Version: Date: 
 Daniel De Backer Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Ok for me ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-26 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Anomalous Opening of the Common Bile Duct into the Duodenal Bulb: Endoscopic Treatment Title: 
 1  16 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 Christopher Christophi Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is an interesting article highlighting the clinical implications of an anomalous opening of the common 
bile duct into the duodenal bulb. A total of 53 cases are described, although full clinical details are presented 
in only 39 cases. These cases may be associated with biliary and duodenal complications. It is emphasized 
that balloon dilatation rather than sphincterotomy should be used in this condition associated with common 
duct stones to minimize complications. The reason quoted is a lack of a sphincter mechanisms at the lower 
end of the duct. 
This article has both anatomical and clinical significance. Even though this condition is previously described, 
this is a large series and further emphasizes the implications of this condition. It suffers from being a 
retrospective study with incomplete data. Some of the data lack objectivity and appear observational only. It 
is well presented however and the conclusions reached appear valid. The significance of this conditioned id clearly highlighted. This article would be improved if the underlying embryology and anatomical considerations are added to the text, perhaps with with appropriate illustrations. The references appear 
comprehensive. 
I would recommend acceptance for publication following revision. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-26 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Anomalous Opening of the Common Bile Duct into the Duodenal Bulb: Endoscopic Treatment Title: 
 1  20 March 2007 Version: Date: 
 Everson Artifon Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
-It will be need that a native colleague read the manuscript because some sentences are not well 
structured; -Methodology is not good. This session should be improved including more details about each issue in analysis.The method is also not corresponding to the results(please, the authors must need to do this 
improving). 
-The manuscript appears to be a cohort project ,so it will be need to demonstrated the "n' power and a rate analysis . Please, include the statistical analysis in the method session. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 tables should be improved because it seems a little bit confusing for the readers. - The references should be checked because two of them are not corresponding to the citation in the 
text.Please, let us know the accuracy of these references. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-26 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Anomalous Opening of the Common Bile Duct into the Duodenal Bulb: Endoscopic Treatment Title: 
 2  4 June 2007 Version: Date: 
 Christopher Christophi Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
The concerns regarding the embryology have been addressed. The statistical analysis and methodology 
remain weak. Overall. I would recommend acceptance for publication 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-26 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Anomalous Opening of the Common Bile Duct into the Duodenal Bulb: Endoscopic Treatment Title: 
 2  4 June 2007 Version: Date: 
 Everson Artifon Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
I read the manuscript and author's comments about my questions and ,defenitely, everythingh are right.So, I 
suggest accept this manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-25 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 An economic model of long-term use of celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis Title: 
 1  23 March 2007 Version: Date: 
 M. Alan Brookhart Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
This paper presents an economic model of long-term celecoxib versus non-selective NSAID use. 
The main issue here is that the findings of this analysis are dramtically different from another well-known 
cost-effectiveness study of coxibs by Speigel, et. al. In that study, an ICER of over $240,000 per QALY was reported versus $31,000 reported in this paper. The reasons for these large differences need to be very 
transparent to the reader. 
The model is not presented in such a way so that it would be reproducible; and it is therefore hard to 
evaluate its plausability. For example, it is unclear how the timing of events is tracked. A Markov model 
seems like it would have been appropriate choice for this analysis, but it is not clear if that was used. 
Projecting results from a 12-week trial to 21 years of follow-up is speculative. It is reasonable to expect that 
there is "depletion of susceptibles" phenomenon with NSAIDs, i.e., there are some patients who are 
vulnerable to developing GI complications on NSAIDs and that may happen quickly. So, that the risk 
difference between nsNSAIDs and coxib might be large initially but then converge over time. This should be 
explored in a sensitivity analysis. 
Are QALYs are discounted? This is not mentioned in methods anywhere. Given that costs were discounted 
at 3% per year, if QALYs aren’t discounted, results are going to be biased in favor of coxibs. 
The sensitivity analysis results need to be presented rather than just mentioned. 
0.13 is a big utility decrement for ulcer/dyspepsia relative to the other numbers in the literature. This is not 
varied and the results may be quite sensitive to this number. It is labeled as the disutility for moderate to severe dyspepsia, but in the paper it came from, it is actually the value for severe dyspepsia. Mild to 
moderate are in the 0.07 to 0.09 range. Other numbers in the literature are generally smaller. For example, 
0.02 in Sullivan Med Care paper, 0.07 in Beaver Dam study, 0.06 in Gerson Am J Gastroenterol. 
Finally, all of the relevant treatment options are not represented here. The ICER of celecoxib benefits from 
patent expiration in 2013. That begs the question of whether treating with nsNSAIDs until 2013 and then 
switching to celecoxib might be cost-effective. It would also be of interest to know the ICER of continual treatment with a PPI+naproxen/H2-blocker. 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-24 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Gene Expression Changes Associated with Barretts Esophagus and Barretts-Associated Title: 
Adenocarcinoma Cell Lines After Acid or Bile Salt Exposure 
 1  9 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 Gareth Jenkins Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The paper looks at the effect of acid and bile on proliferation in vitro and ex vivo through gene expression analysis and assessment of cell turnover. There are some interesting findings in this report and a wealth of gene expression data in the supplemental files. Whilst none of the gene expression findings suggested 
proliferation, this data may provide a valuable resource for researchers looking at the biology of Barrett's 
metaplasia and subsequent carcinogenesis. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
n/a ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
1. Methods page 5. More details needed in the methods section. For example, the list of 
conjugated/unconjugated bile acids only contains conjugated ones (glyco, tauro). It is not clear why 2 
different mixtures of conjugated bile acids were used. Were these types and concentrations used to reflect 
those seen in the refluxate in vivo? 2. Page 5, line 6. tauro-c-henodeoxycholic 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
1. Can the authors provide brief justifications for dosing schedules (concentrations of bile acids, time 
points)? One reason for a lack of expression changes here compared to other reports (e.g. via MapK), could 
involve differences in dosing schedules, time points etc compared to other reports. 
2. The acid exposures were carried out for up to 60 minutes, followed by 4 hours recovery, whereas the bile 
exposures were carried out for 60 minutes followed by 24 hours recovery, why the difference? 
3. The acid pulses here showed no effect on proliferation, which is in contrast to earlier work. This 
inconsistency is not discussed and perhaps should be. 
4. Why were 3 measures of proliferation shown for acid, but only 1 for bile? Is the MTS and cell count data 
available for bile treated cells? If so, does it show the same thing as the thymidine data? 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-24 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Gene Expression Changes Associated with Barretts Esophagus and Barretts-Associated Title: 
Adenocarcinoma Cell Lines After Acid or Bile Salt Exposure 
 1  13 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 Alan Casson Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This study addresses an important area related to esophageal carcinogenesis, and further clarifies a number of issues regarding in vitro models. However, the following minor revisions would enhance this 
work. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 1) Regarding the cell lines used, especially Seg-1, it is possible that with increasing numbers of passages, 
response to exogenous stimuli and gene expression changes with time. The authors should document (esp. 
for Seg-1) what passage number (if known) these cell lines were used, and whether any temporal changes 
were noted. 
2) Regarding the six patients and respective tissues, it would be clearer to include this number at the outset 
(under Tissue samples). Were there any unique characteristics related to this patient group in light of these 
results. ie. did these patients have a history of GERD (and if so, how severe, duration etc) and did any have 
objective measures of acid/ and or bile exposure by 24hr pH/Bilitec 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-24 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Gene Expression Changes Associated with Barretts Esophagus and Barretts-Associated Title: 
Adenocarcinoma Cell Lines After Acid or Bile Salt Exposure 
 2  15 May 2007 Version: Date: 
 Gareth Jenkins Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
n/a 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) n/a 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) n/a 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-23 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Effects of oral adenosine 5-'triphosphate and adenosine in enteric-coated capsules on Title: 
indomethacin-induced permeability changes in the human small intestine: a randomized cross-over study 
 1  26 March 2007 Version: Date: 
 Adrian Cummins Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
This study is straight forward and it is unfortunate that a positive outcome was not obtained. The major 
issue is that I would like is more detail initially on the preceding study (reference 30) in the Introduction, as 
this information is scattered in various parts of the manuscript, but is critical to understanding this present study. Such issues are when the peak of permeability following indomethacin is expected and I wonder 
whether paragraph 4 in the Introduction could be deleted or moved to the Discussion. The study would be 
more interesting if the authors waited until further studies were completed (more frequent administration of 
ATP/adenosine) and hopefully these would yield a positive outcome. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
None 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-23 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Effects of oral adenosine 5-'triphosphate and adenosine in enteric-coated capsules on Title: 
indomethacin-induced permeability changes in the human small intestine: a randomized cross-over study 
 1  4 April 2007 Version: Date: 
 Martin Gotteland Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
The present study was carried out to evaluate the effect of the oral administration of encapsulated 
adenosine or ATP on indomethacin-induced alterations of the intestinal barrier function. It was based on the previous observation by the authors that topical application of ATP through naso-intestinal tube normalized intestinal permeability to lactulose/rhamnose. 
The objective is well defined, the methods are appropriate and the data are well controlled and support 
adequately the discussion and conclusions. 
The relevance of the study, however, is limited due to the negative results obtained: no protective effects of 
ATP or adenosine were observed when these compounds were administered as enteric-coated capsules. 
As explained by the authors, this is probably due to the fact that indomethacin acts on the upper segments 
of the small intestine while the opening of the Eudragit capsules occurs at a more distal site. This means 
that the authors have to use another model of gut barrier alteration affecting the intestine more distally, or to use another type of coating allowing the release of the drug in the upper intestine. 
 Reject because too small an advance to publish What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-21 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Modulation of RANTES expression by HCV core protein in liver derived cell lines Title: 
 5  30 April 2007 Version: Date: 
 Hans Dieter Nischalke Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
the authors have responded to al my comments satisfactorily. In my opinion the manuscript is now 
acceptable for puplication in BMC Gastroenterology. 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-22 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Septic thrombophlebitis of the mesenteric vein and multiple liver abscesses in a patient with Crohn`s Title: 
disease at onset. 
 2  12 December 2006 Version: Date: 
 Thomas Zöpf Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Interesting Case report of a rare complication of Crohn´s disease. There are about 7 cases in the literature 
concerning this complication. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
On page 4, last paragraphe of results section the expression "he was operated on 5 months later" needs 
some clarification. 
First sentence of discussion: "Until now the association of pylephebitis and liver abscesses with CD has 
only been reported in a paediatric patient" but there are more than seven references concerning this issue in 
this case report - This needs some revision. 
It would be interesting, how the patient is doing in long term follow up. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-22 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Septic thrombophlebitis of the superior mesenteric vein and multiple liver abscesses in a patient with Title: 
Crohn`s disease at onset. 
 3  13 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 Gottfried Novacek Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
The last two words of the title should be removed (...at onset) and the title should be as follows: "Septic thrombophlebitis of the superior mesenteric vein and multiple liver absesses in a patient with Crohn's disease". 
Sometimes "r" is mising in the word "thrombophlebitis". The authors should check again the manuscript for 
tipos. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-22 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Septic thrombophlebitis of the superior mesenteric vein and multiple liver abscesses in a patient with Title: 
Crohn`s disease at onset. 
 3  14 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 Alessandro Fichera Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The paper is significantly improved but, there are still some changes that need to be made, mostly of the English language. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) None ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
In the Case Report, the first sentence that reads: “A 25-year-old white male smoker patient was admitted to 
our hospital after due to fever and right lower quadrant abdominal pain” “after” should be eliminated. 
In several places “patients” is spelled “pacients”. That should be corrected. The use of the abbreviation CD 
for Crohn’s disease is not used throughout the paper and that should be corrected. 
Although it is important and interesting to know the dose of prednisone according to the body weight, I think 
that the overall dose should be mentioned when describing the case report. 
In the Case Report, the sentence that reads: “the time he continued on his medication of 5mg of prednisone 
per day” should read: “At the time he was still taking 5mg of prednisone by mouth per day”. 
At the end of the Case Report, a brief discussion on postoperative medical management following his 
discharge should be mentioned. 
In the Discussion, at the end of the first paragraph, the first sentence that reads: “We report a case of a 
young man in which said association was confirmed and was treated successfully with conservative therapy” should be changed to “A reported case of a young man with pylephlebitis and liver abscesses 
associated with Crohn’s disease was treated successfully with conservative therapy followed by surgery. 
In the Discussion, again, several times patient is spelled with a “c” and Crohn’s disease is not abbreviated 
throughout the Discussion. 
The new figure is very helpful in understanding the course of the patient. Overall, I think the paper is 
significantly improved and after these minor grammatical changes should be accepted for publication. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
None 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-18 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Stent versus gastrojejunostomy for the palliation of gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review Title: 
 1  6 March 2007 Version: Date: 
 Iruru Maetani Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The paper is a review article that focuses on the comparison between stent placement and surgical 
gastrojejunostomy for the palliation of gastric outlet obstruction. In the past, only two randomized trials between the two modalities have been reported and these two studies were conducted with a small sample 
size. Thus, a systematic review like this is significantly meaningful at present. Although this paper is well 
written, please clarify the following items. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
In the discussion section, you offer your opinion on covered stents. Although I agree with your opinion, you 
should refer to the articles regarding the use of covered stent for gastric outlet obstruction such as [Ref#23, 
25, 29, 30, 42] instead of esophageal obstruction [Ref#52]. 
P.7 Last line: A misspelled word “Giaturco” should be replaced with “Gianturco”. 
P.15 L.9 You say, “P.D. helped with ….” You mean “P.S.”. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
You conclude that stent placement may be associated with more favorable results in patients with a 
relatively short life expectancy, while GJJ is preferable to patients with a more prolonged prognosis because 
the results show that recurrent obstructive symptoms were more common after stent placement (18% vs. 
1%). As time passes, the possibility of the stent occlusion probably increases. I think that stent obstruction 
probably occurs as a late-onset adverse effect unlike stent migration. To emphasize conclusion, however, it 
is desirable to display the period until recurrent obstructive symptoms are seen in reference to available 
data of published studies. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-18 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Stent versus gastrojejunostomy for the palliation of gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review Title: 
 1  12 March 2007 Version: Date: 
 Todd Baron Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
excellent review, very comprehensive 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) On page 12, paragraph 2, one of the other factors which may contribute to the wide variation in 
complications (as well as success) is operator experience. 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the statistics. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-18 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Stent versus gastrojejunostomy for the palliation of gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review Title: 
 1  15 March 2007 Version: Date: 
 alessandro A repici Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The manuscript from the Rotterdam group is an excellent and systematic review of the two different 
treatment modalities for palliation of gastric outlet obstruction. This manuscript covers an area in continuous 
updating for which there are no extablished guidelines and clinical approaches can vary depending on 
whom is taking care of the patient. So it is worthwhile this careful and objective evaluation of available data 
on literature. I appreciated the excellent analysis of the single outcomes and the objective discussion in 
which the weak points of the endoscopic approach (complication rate as high as surgical treatment, lack of 
long-term efficacy, etc) are correctly ruled out. Despite the fact that just a limited number of true randomized 
studies have been published, this review may allow to draw significant conclusions on what is the most 
appropriate approach for the different stages of disease leading to the gastric outlet obstruction. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
no major revision are needed 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
no minor revision are needed 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) It could be useful, if possible, to compare the results of patients treated with uncovered versus covered 
stent. May the use of a covered stent afford a more prolonged benefit on luminal patency? This issue has 
been already proven for the esophageal cancer and it would be nice if the authors could mention this possibility in the discussion, even as potential improvement for the future. Moreover it would interesting to 
compare the outcomes of the two different approach basing on the cause of duodenal obstruction. Does the 
obstruction from a pancreatic cancer behaviour differently than an obstruction from a primary duodenal 
adenocarcinoma? How this can impact the outcome of the two different treatments? 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that i have no competing interest
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-18 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Stent versus gastrojejunostomy for the palliation of gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review Title: 
 1  16 March 2007 Version: Date: 
 Greger Lindberg Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is a systematic review of literature data on efficacy, complications, and costs of treatment alternatives 
in malignant gastric outlet obstruction. Stenting is a new technique that has been applied in many places 
without good evidence for its superiority to previous techniques including open or laparoscopic by-pass with 
gastrojejunostomy. The authors have used recommended techniques for the analysis of published data. 
There is a lack of randomized studies in this area and their conclusion is that there is insufficient data to 
give a firm recommendation regarding the choice between stenting and operative by-pass in the case of malignant gastric outlet obstruction. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) I have no major revisions to suggest. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
I have no minor essential revisions to suggest. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
I am a little surprised by the abbreviation GJJ for gastrojejunostomy. Wouldn't GJS be more adequate? Not 
many centres, at least not in Europe, have large numbers of patients that would be suitable for a 
randomized study. I think this is a typical area in which a cooperative multinational study should be initiated. 
Perhaps the authors could provide some estimate on the expected annual number of adult patients per 
million inhabitants who would need this kind of treatment per year. 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-18 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Stent versus gastrojejunostomy for the palliation of gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review Title: 
 2  23 April 2007 Version: Date: 
 Iruru Maetani Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
Thank you for replying my comments to your article. The revised version of your manuscript has been well 
corrected. I think that there are no further items to be revised. 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-19 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Comparison of Morning versus Afternoon Cecal Intubation Rates Title: 
 1  7 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 Hans Herfarth Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is a well-written retrospective comparative analysis of colonoscopy completion rates in the morning 
and in the afternoon. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) The authors should incorporate the article by Sanaka et al. instead of the abstract (reference 17), which has been previously published in the Am J Gastroenterol. in 12/2006. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-19 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Comparison of Morning versus Afternoon Cecal Intubation Rates Title: 
 1  23 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 George Dafnis Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is a well written study comprising a large number of colonoscopies. It highlights the importance of 
proper bowel preparation and the impact on completion rates. I have some minor suggestions that I think the authors should address. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
1. Presence of diverticulosis has been shown to be associated with lower completion rates. Data on this is 
not mentioned in your paper. Have you controlled for this variable in the logistic regression analysis? 
2. What criteria were used to define if the cecum was reached? 
3. You mention that the endoscopist is a variable in the analysis. How do 
you characterize the skill of the endoscopist? Number of colonoscopies performed? Number of years as an endoscopist? I think this should be stated in the methods paragraph. This may influence the results of the 
study. 
4. Results, paragraph 2: “were observed in 94.5% of patients in the AM group versus 90.2% in 9.8% in the 
PM group………” 
This should be: “were observed in 94.5% of patients in the AM group versus 
90.2% in the PM group………” 
5. As the authors point out themselves in 63% of the incomplete examinations the reason for an incomplete 
examination is not stated. Thus in 211 colonoscopies the reason for incompletion is unknown. It would have been interesting to know why the cecum was not reached. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-19 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Comparison of Morning versus Afternoon Cecal Intubation Rates Title: 
 2  9 April 2007 Version: Date: 
 George Dafnis Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is a well written study comprising a large number of colonoscopies. It highlights the importance of 
proper bowel preparation and the impact on completion rates. I have some minor suggestions that I think the authors should address. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
1. Regarding presence of diverticulosis and impact on completion rates I think that you should mention that 
you have no reliable data on this in your database and therefore you have not been able to controll for this variable in the logistic regression analysis. 
2. Criteria used to define if the cecum was reached should be stated in the methods section. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-20 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Medication beliefs in inflammatory bowel disease patients reporting low quality of life: a qualitative Title: 
study 
 1  19 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Sunanda Kane Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
It is important to understand patient beliefs and perceptions about their disease and medications before we can hope to change behavior. This study is one step in that direction. I am afraid that I do not have adequate training in psychology methodology to comment on the data collection and analysis. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) If this is to be published in a gastroenterology journal, then it has to be written with the gastroenterologist in 
mind. In its current state, it seems more appropriate for pyschologists and therapists who care for IBD 
patients. I am not sure that any information in this study is novel given the published data from previous authors. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) I am not sure what having quotations in the text and having text boxes adds, it seems a bit duplicative. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-20 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Medication beliefs among patients with inflammatory bowel disease who report low quality of life: a Title: 
qualitative study. 
 3  1 April 2007 Version: Date: 
 Sunanda Kane Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I am satisfied with the authors' changes to the manuscript ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
None ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
None ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-20 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Medication beliefs among patients with inflammatory bowel disease who report low quality of life: a Title: 
qualitative study. 
 3  13 April 2007 Version: Date: 
 roger jones Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
it is now acceptable for publication ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)