JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0298-y (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Differential hepatotoxicity of dietary and DNL-derived palmitate in the
methionine-choline-deficient model of steatohepatitis
Version:2Date:17 March 2015
Reviewer: ALEXANDER WREE
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript by Pierce et al. describes the results of a comparative feeding
project focusing on hepatotoxicity and lipotoxicity in mice fed with different MCD
formulas. They compare the effect of custom MCD diets with four different
macronutrient combinations. Results are presented in a clear manner and the
manuscript is well written and easily understandable. I just have some additional
comments.
The MCD model is, despite it’s know drawbacks, used and established to study
the development of NAFLD and NASH. In the manuscript authors use “custom
MCD formulas” (page 2, line 8). How do the custom formulas differ from the
“standard” MCD diet?
One major problem in studying the development of NAFLD and NASH in mice is
the lack of development of insulin resistance when compared to the course of
disease in human. Do any of the custom MCD diets used in this manuscript
overcome this issues?
A major hallmark in the progression of liver disease is the activation and
trans-differentiation of hepatic stellate cells to collagen producing myofibroblast.
This effect has been demonstrated over and over in the “standard” MCD diet. Do
the different “custom MCD formulas” show similar effects?
Minor comments and errata
The list of abbreviation is missing some items, e.g. SCD-1, DNL.
The indication of significant differences using a mix of numbers and asterisks is
not easily understandable.
With the suggested minor, but in my opinion essential changes, the manuscript
by Pierce et al. may be re-submitted for publication in BMC Gastroenterology.
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/s12876-015-0298-y (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Differential hepatotoxicity of dietary and DNL-derived palmitate in the
methionine-choline-deficient model of steatohepatitis
Version:2Date:22 March 2015
Reviewer: Julia Kälsch
Reviewer's report:
Review of BMC Gastroenterology Article titled “Differential hepatotoxicity of
dietary and DNL-derived palmitate in the methionine-choline-deficient model of
staetohepatitis” by Andrew A. Pierce, Michael K. Pickens, Kevin Siao, James P.
Grenert and Jacquelyn J. Maher
The manuscript by Andrew A. Pierce et al. performed an analysis of liver injury
induced by custom methionine-choline-deficient (MCD) diet with 4 different
macronutrient combinations in mice. The objective of the study was to determine
whether dietary palmitate exerts the same toxicity as carbohydrate-derived
palmitate.
Adult male mice were fed for 21 days with one of different custom
methionine-choline-sufficient (MCS) or MCD diet formulas. The custom-made
formulas contained different components of carbohydrates and fats (e.g. starch
or sucrose, oleate or palmetate). After the mice were killed, serum alanine
aminotransferase (ALT) was measured, triglyceride and fatty acid analysis was
performed by extracting lipids from fresh liver tissue, furthermore, gene
expression was evaluated by extraction of total RNA from liver tissue. Results
were compared by analysis of variance with Tukey post-hoc testing.
The manuscript is well written and the study design was appropriate for the given
aims. The authors managed to sum up interesting and important results mainly
indicating that dietary and DNL palmitate have different effects on liver cells in
mice. They also managed the challenge to visualize their results, clearly giving
the reader an impression of the most important findings.
Major comments:
- No major comments
Minor comments:
- The authors should also measure aspartate amino transferase (AST), not only
ALT, as well as gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), to determine the whole
spectrum of liver damage.
- Performance of M-30 and M-65 cell death assay would be another tool to
evaluate the difference in liver injury.
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/s12876-015-0298-y (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Differential hepatotoxicity of dietary and DNL-derived palmitate in the
methionine-choline-deficient model of steatohepatitis
Version:3Date:15 May 2015
Reviewer: ALEXANDER WREE
Reviewer's report:
Authors addressed all questions raised after the initial submission adequately.
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/s12876-015-0298-y (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Differential hepatotoxicity of dietary and DNL-derived palmitate in the
methionine-choline-deficient model of steatohepatitis
Version:3Date:15 May 2015
Reviewer: Joern M. Schattenberg
Reviewer's report:
The authors have performed additional experiments and have thoroughly
answered my comments.
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:
No competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0303-5 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Massive Mesenteric Panniculitis due to Fibromuscular Dysplasia of the
Inferior Mesenteric Artery: A Case Report
Version:3Date:21 April 2015
Reviewer: michele tonerini
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions: none
Minor Essential Revisions: none
Discretionary Revisions: none
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/s12876-015-0303-5 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Massive Mesenteric Panniculitis due to Fibromuscular Dysplasia of the
Inferior Mesenteric Artery: A Case Report
Version:3Date:10 May 2015
Reviewer: Ali Kemal Sivrioglu
Reviewer's report:
Minor revision: missing labels and legend on figure 1
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/s12876-015-0302-6 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Genetic mutations in acute pancreatitis
Version:4Date:28 October 2014
Reviewer: RUPJYOTI TALUKDAR
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the authors have evaluated the genetic mutations of 221 patients
with acute pancreatitis (AP) and compared with 345 healthy controls. The
authors have studied the common mutations in SPINK1, CFTR and CTRC genes
with the aid of PCR based techniques. However, there are several major issues
that needs to be addressed by the authors.
INTRODUCTION:
1. Introduction is too long. It should be shortened substantially and authors need
to be be more focused.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
1. It has been mentioned that biliary AP was confirmed based on USG, CT, NMR
and/or ERCP. Was ALT levels and EUS not used in making the diagnosis of
biliary AP? ERCP is currently not recommended for making a diagnosis biliary
AP; but is restricted only to therapeutic ductal clearance for impacted CBD
stones with cholangitis in the setting of AP.
2. Who were the healthy controls and how were they selected and enrolled for
the study? Were they age and sex matched?
3. Why was PRSS1 mutations not checked? This is one of the most important
gene that has been found to be associated with pancreatitis in different cohort
worldwide. Authors should also study mutations in the PRSS1 gene.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:
1. Results should also be reported in terms of odd's ratio with 95% confidence
intervals.
RESULTS:
1. Were all the 221 patients with AP were consecutively admitted?
How many patients had first episode and how many had recurrent AP? Many of
these patients are likely to have underlying chronic pancreatitis. Did the authors
evaluate for the presence of features of underlying chronic pancreatitis?
2. How was alcohol related AP defined, in terms of duration and amount of
alcohol intake?
3. How many patients had pancreas divisum and what was the relationship of the
genetic mutations with pancreas divisum and other aetiologies?
4. Authors should also report the frequency of acute pancreatitis in the presence
of each mutations that were studied. They should also mention if there was
multiple mutations in patients and if any, what was the relationship with the
development of acute pancreatitis and its severity.
5. Headings of Tables 2, 3 and 4 appears to be incorporated in the main text.
This needs to be removed.
6. Figures 1-7 may be omitted since they doesn't seen to contribute to the
manuscript substantially.
7. There are several language and grammatical errors all throughout the
manuscript.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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/s12876-015-0302-6 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Genetic mutations in acute pancreatitis
Version:4Date:30 October 2014
Reviewer: Tony G Jacob
Reviewer's report:
Attached
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interest.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0302-6 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Genetic mutations in SPINK1, CFTR, CTRC in acute pancreatitis
Version:10Date:9 February 2015
Reviewer: RUPJYOTI TALUKDAR
Reviewer's report:
The authors have now revised the manuscript to a substantial extent and the
quality has increased. However, the authors have not modified few issues that I
had pinter out earlier.
The introduction is still very long. Mechanistic aspects of PRSS, SPINK and
CFTR can be summarised in the discussion. Details of claudin is not be
necessary since the authors have not evaluated claudin in this manuscript.
The tables appear in the text in a haphazard manner. The should come in
sequence as they appear in the text.
The title of the tables are still embedded within the main text.
Language needs to be improved.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0302-6 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Genetic mutations in SPINK1, CFTR, CTRC in acute pancreatitis
Version:10Date:2 February 2015
Reviewer: Tony G Jacob
Reviewer's report:
The authors have incorporated most of the changes suggested.
Adding the word 'genes' after 'CTRC' in the title may make the title
self-explanatory.
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/s12876-015-0300-8 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effect of antecolic or retrocolic reconstruction of the
gastro/duodenojejunostomy on delayed gastric emptying after
pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis
Version:1Date:23 April 2014
Reviewer: bhushan bhole
Reviewer's report:
This is well written meta-analysis of an important controversial topic.
Previous meta-analysis by Su et al (reference no 3) concluded that antecolic
reconstruction for DJ can decrease DGE rate after PPPD. But this study included
3 observational studies.Hence results needs to be interpreted with caution.
In this regard,present study includes meta-analysis of 5 RCTs which is indeed
superior form of research design.Also limitations of the study are also clearly
stated.
I think this meta-analysis would make a useful contribution to the literature.
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/s12876-015-0300-8 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effect of antecolic or retrocolic reconstruction of the
gastro/duodenojejunostomy on delayed gastric emptying after
pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis
Version:1Date:16 March 2015
Reviewer: Piotr Witkowski
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?- yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?- yes
3. Are the data sound?- yes
4. Do the figures appear to be genuine, i.e. without evidence of manipulation?-
yes
5. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?- yes
6. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?- yes
7. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?- yes
8. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?- yes
9. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?- yes
10. Is the writing acceptable?- yes
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 have no competing interest
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0291-5 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Hepatic stellate cells: central modulators of hepatic carcinogenesis
Version:2Date:6 April 2015
Reviewer: Shannon Glaser
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. The review “Hepatic stellate cells: central modulators of hepatic
carcinogenesis” by Thompson, et. al. does cover an area of importance in the
field covered by the journal.
2. The review presents a comprehensive, authoritative review of existing work on
the role that HSCs play in the progression of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC),
specifically the key components produced by HSCs that modulate HCC tumor
formation and how these pathways may be targeted as new therapeutic options
for the treatment of HCC.
Other comments:
In Lines 54-57 the authors mention that chronic Hepatitis B infection is one of the
major risk factors for HCC. Then, in the next sentence in Lines 57 and 58 they
mention that “In most countries, the mortality rate approximates the incidence,
which is increasing”. It is not clear whether the authors are referring to the
mortality rate of HCC or the mortality rate of Hepatitis B in this sentence, so that
should be clarified.
In line 415 the references in the brackets should be combined [119-121] instead
of [119] [120] [121].
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0291-5 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Hepatic stellate cells: central modulators of hepatic carcinogenesis
Version:2Date:11 April 2015
Reviewer: Diego F Calvisi
Reviewer's report:
In the present review article, Thompson et al. summarized the current knowledge
on the link between hepatic stellate cells (HSC), the major source of extracellular
proteins during fibrogenesis, and hepatocarcinogenesis. In particular, the authors
focused on the molecular mechanisms whereby HSC modulate hepatocellular
carcinoma (HCC) growth, immune cell evasion and angiogenesis. In addition, the
authors describe the mechanistic crosstalk between HSC and HCC, and the
novel strategies developed to target HSC for the treatment of human HCC.
The work by Thompson et al. is an excellent, well-written review article on this
important topic. The review presents a comprehensive, authoritative review of the
existing work in this area. The appropriate references are cited, and all
statements of fact accompanied by a reference.
Besides a comprehensive summary, the authors elegantly discussed the most
recent strategies and therapeutic possibility of targeting HSC in human liver
cancer.
I would kindly suggest the authors few, minor modifications.
Discretionary Revisions:
1. The authors should include a table in which the major molecular targets of the
HSC-HCC crosstalk (and the presumable role of these targets) are summarized.
2. The authors should add a scheme where the innovative therapeutic
approaches targeting HSC and the related challenges ae summarized.
Level of interest: An exceptional article
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/s12876-015-0292-4 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:A case series in patients with enteropathy and chronic granulomatous
diseases
Version:2Date:4 March 2015
Reviewer: Heyson Chan
Reviewer's report:
The authors reported three cases with sarcoidosis and celiac-like enteropathy,
which has been rarely reported in the literature.
Major revision
Although this is of interest in the field of gastroenterology, there are several major
compulsory revisions that the authors need to address before publication.
As the authors had stated, sarcoidosis is a diagnosis of exclusion. It is therefore
important for them to explain how the other differential diagnoses were being
excluded. In patient A, it was stated that bronchial biopsies revealed no evidence
of mycobacteria. Please specify if it was by ZN stain or formal TB culture has
been performed. In patient B, please specify what had been done to exclude
other differential diagnoses. In patient C, again, please specify what had been
done for the bronchoscopy.
Treatment should also be discussed. In patient A, it was stated that the patient
received a course of prednisolone. Please specify the duration and dosage used.
Please also specify whether maintenance therapy was required to maintain
remission for the underlying sarcoidosis. In patient B, please specify what is
meant by several courses.
Minor essential revision
There is room for improvement for the quality of written English. Below are
examples that the authors may consider revising:
- Page 3, line 25: “studies suggest” instead of “studies suggests”
- Page 5, line 13: “at the age” instead of “at an age”
- Page 6, line 6: “several courses of steroid” instead of “several times steroid”
- Page 8, line 18: “Independent of” instead of “independently of”
- Page 20, line 10: “presented with” instead of “presented”
Discretionary revisions
The authors may consider adding a conclusion statement at the end of the main
text to highlight the significance of this case series.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0292-4 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:A case series in patients with enteropathy and chronic granulomatous
diseases
Version:2Date:12 March 2015
Reviewer: Rashid Lui
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
page 7
line 4 to 7. May I ask whether imaging i.e. MRI spine or lumbar puncture was
done for the spastic paraparesis, and if so to include it in the case report.
Line 6 could you also provide details on the nerve conduction tests for the
inflammatory neuropathy diagnosis.
Line 6. please clarify whether the immunoglobulins were treating the neuropathy
or the spastic paraparesis.
Discretionary Revisions
In the supplementary tables you have provided, consider adding other
information i.e. the HLA-DRE/DQ2 haploype status
Can also consider mentioning the state of diet (gluten free vs normal), and also
response to treatment
Can state the impact of this association to clinical practice i.e. predict or monitor
response gluten free diet.
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/s12876-015-0290-6 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Comparison of the usefulness of endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation
with endoscopic sphincterotomy for large and multiple common bile duct stones
Version:3Date:12 January 2015
Reviewer: Muhammad Hasan
Reviewer's report:
1- In abstract line 8. EPLBD has been abbreviated wrong as EBLBD.
2- The technique of ERCP is very confusing. In two places: one in section
Endoscopic technique (line 19-21) and second in discussion portion "in the area
of discussion of rate of pancreatitis" it appears like sphincterotomy was
performed prior to each EPLBD. If sphincterotomy was performed before each
EPLBD then it needs to mentioned clearly in the whole paper. In that case it
would be comparison of two groups which would be EST vs. EST+EPLBD.
If however, above is not the case and its pure comparison of EST vs. EPLBD
then I am not sure these results are applicable to Western hemisphere. As two of
the meta-analysis (TH. Baron. AJG 2004 and Weinberg BM. Cochrane Data
Base. 2006) have clearly indicated higher risk of pancreatitis (including fatal
cases) with EPBLD only therapy and should not performed as a sole technique
(without EST) unless special and unique circumstances.
3- Discussion of the paper needs to be more concise and shorter.
4- It also needs to very clearly stated that these results are not applicable to
patients less than age of 60 (per authors it was not a first line treatment for
younger than 60 years of age)
5- All patients received protease inhibitors and antimicrobials to prevents
pancreatitis. Whats the evidence for that??
6- Mean duration of hospitalization was 20.2 days in EST group and 17.7 days in
EPLBD. If complete clearance of stones was more than 88% in EPLBD group
then I unable to comprehend that long duration of hospitalization (more than 17
days of hospitalization just for an ERCP which usually is an out patient
procedure. WOW!!!). Any explanation of such a long duration of hospitalization in
both groups?
7. Can authors elaborate what was hypothesized reason of such high rate of
pancreatitis: 22.2% in EST, as compared to only 5.9% in EPBLD.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0290-6 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Comparison of the usefulness of endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation
with endoscopic sphincterotomy for large and multiple common bile duct stones
Version:3Date:12 February 2015
Reviewer: Madhusudhan Sanaka
Reviewer's report:
Authors did an interesting study comparing EST with EPLBD for large stones in
CBD.
EPLBD was superior to EST as expected.
Minor revisions:
1. need better grammar
2. can authors explain why EST group had very high pancreatitis rate?
3. can authors give details of the size of the stones with 3 or more common bile
duct stones
4. reduce redundancy in results by not repeating what is already shown in tables
5. I do not understand why mean duration of hospitalization was so long, please
explain.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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/s12876-015-0286-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Association between IL28B polymorphisms and infection susceptibility of
Hepatitis B Virus in Asian population
Version:2Date:13 March 2015
Reviewer: Ingorn Kimkong
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0286-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Association between IL28B polymorphisms and infection susceptibility of
Hepatitis B Virus in Asian population
Version:2Date:16 March 2015
Reviewer: enrico galmozzi
Reviewer's report:
Although this manuscript adds little to what is already known, a meta-analysis if
done properly as in this case, is a necessary tool for a better understanding of
the association of two SNPs in IL28B and susceptibility for HBV infection in Asian
population. Therefore, in my opinion this work is worthy of publication.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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/s12876-015-0281-7 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Radioactive I-131 induced hepatotoxicity
Version:4Date:1 February 2015
Reviewer: Thomas Ritz
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. Reference should be made to “Iodine-131 induced hepatotoxicity in previously
healthy patients with Grave’s disease” published in “Thyroid Research” in 2013.
In this case report the authors also indicate on acute hepatotoxicity after
treatment with radioactive iodine.
2. Revision to case presentation, 3rd paragraph: With a RUCAM score of 7
induced liver injury by I-131 administration is more “probable” then “definite”.
3. Revision to case presentation section, 3rd paragraph: The authors mention the
increase of total bilirubin. Additionally, the progression of the AST and ALT levels
should be mentioned as markers of hepatic injury as well.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. Case presentation, 2nd paragraph: It is recommended to be more specific
about the blood markers the authors are referring to and provide references (viral
hepatitis antibodies or PCR examination, which autoimmune serologies).
2. A more differentiated reflection between the chronic diffuse hepatopathy
observed in abdominal ultrasound and the normal MRI examination results
should have been considered by the authors.
Minor issues not for publication:
1. Revision to case presentation, 2nd paragraph: Thicken gallbladder instead of
thickengallbladder.
2. Revision to case presentation, 3rd paragraph:The reference [8] should be
revoked.
3. Conclusion 5th paragraph: “The patient presents typical cholestatic damage”
instead of “The patient present typical cholestatic damage” and “when patients
present liver injury” instead of “when patient present liver injury”.
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/s12876-015-0281-7 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Radioactive I-131 induced hepatotoxicity
Version:4Date:3 February 2015
Reviewer: Hanna Dückers-Horst
Reviewer's report:
Dear author,
thank you very much for submitting this interesting case report on drug-induced
liver injury due to administration of I-131 ablation therapy.
Major Compulsatory Revisions: none
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. It would be interesting to know which parameters of the RUCAM score were
particularly elevated in your patient. Please create a chart showing the score for
your patient displaying the result of 7 points (“probable DILI”).
2. You write the patient received a therapy with methylprednisolone 40 mg iv drip
qd * 14d after she was diagnosed with DILI. Is this the standard therapy for every
patient with DILI? Or does the therapy regime depend on the RUCAM Score?
The reader would be interested how you proceed in your institution.
3. Please provide a discussion section and shorten your conclusion which needs
to be presented in a more stringent form (actually the "conclusion" is the
“discussion”).
Minor issues not for publication:
There are some spelling mistakes as well as grammatical errors and irregular
expressions (e.g. "Background": Our case is particular all the more worthy of
attention because: 1., 2., 3. ... I-131 ablatioin [ablation] theraphy [therapy] could
present diffuse hepatic uptake; ... ; I131 induced DILI do [does] not response [to]
the basic hepatic protection); "Conclusion": ... sclerae (eyes), no edema, ascites
nor encephalopathy are [were] presented. ... The patient, [who] denied [denies]
history of liver disease, present [presents or presented] typical cholestatic
damage manifestation... As an additional remarks, it remind physicians make
DILI in early consideration when patient present liver injury after I-131 ablation
therapy.)
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
My answer is "no" to all questions above.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0278-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Cognitive-behavioural therapy has no effect on disease activity but
improves quality of life in subgroups of patients with inflammatory bowel disease:
A pilot randomised controlled trial
Version:2Date:1 February 2015
Reviewer: mathurin fumery
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisons
Materials/methods
- Could you defined "clinically established diagnosis of IBD" (page 7)?
- Can you explain why current psychiatric/antidepressant therapy are not
exclusion criteria?
Results
- Primary outcome: Have you performed an "intention to treat" analysis?
Figures
Figure 1: Page 13-in flow chart, 92 patients were allocated to intervention.
However, in the manuscript, 90 patients underwent CBT.
References
Please complete references 17 and 19
Minor Essential Revisisons
Materials and methods
- How have you decided the optimal duration of CBT? Do you think that negative
results on the primary endpoint could be explain by a too short duration of CBT.
-Could you explain more precisely in methods the difference between F2F CBT
and CBT?
Results
-Please defined 'in need group' in "materials and methods" and not in "results"
(page 13)
Results
- Your results are adjusted for baseline. Could you explain on which variables at
baseline do you perfomed this adjustment? (disease activity?associated
therapy?)
- We observed important lost of follow up in CBT group (superior to control
group). It could be explain by the difficulty to observe correctly CBT. Can you
discuss this point? Did you observed associated factor to CBT non observance?
- Did you observed difference of associated conventionnal IBD managment
between the CBT and controls groups?
Discretionary Revisions
Results:
Comment : No data where available on endoscopic activity. it is well known that a
large number of IBD patients have clinical symptoms without any endoscopic
lesion (IBS..). It would be very interesting to have results in these different
subgroup of patients.
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 interest
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0278-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Cognitive-behavioural therapy has no effect on disease activity but
improves quality of life in subgroups of patients with inflammatory bowel disease:
A pilot randomised controlled trial
Version:2Date:4 February 2015
Reviewer: caroline trang
Reviewer's report:
A. Introduction:
Study of great interest in the IBD field and the purpose and the design of the
study are well justified.
B. methodology :
1. Evaluation scales : RSRRS seems less relevant and IBDSCCQ is not yet
validated.
2. "pre-contemplation" could more defined because it is reported several times in
the paper (discussion)
3. What are the evaluation scales for the secondary outcome measures at 6 and
12 months ?
4. CBT :- more precisions about CBT sessions face 2 face : common guidelines
for both sites ?
- more precisions about CBT sessions online : psychologist interventions live with
the patient ?
C. results :
- more precisions about the reasons of attrition in both groups specially in the
CBT groups
D. discussion:
-Goal of 192 patients and 174 only are included without any mention in the
discussion
- repartition was initially designed as 2:1 CBT/control but finally there are 90
patients / 84 patients(1:1 ?)
- recrutment by mails instead of direct invitation might explain the low
recrutement
- It might be interesting to recrute patients during a disease flare with higher
scores on anxiety and depression
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/s12876-015-0287-1 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Factors Impacting Physicians' Decisions to Prevent Variceal Hemorrhage
Version:2Date:15 February 2015
Reviewer: Jing-Houng Wang
Reviewer's report:
General comments
This study by Yan et al. evaluated the gastroenterologists’ preference and
characteristics in decision-making of esophageal varices ligation (EVL) or
beta-blockers (BBS) for prevention of first variceal bleeding. In this survey of 110
physician members of AASLD and AGA, all responders were classified into two
groups according to decision preferences. While physicians (group 1) who
preferred EVL were influenced by the visual confirmation of varices eradication,
group 2 physicians were likely concerned BBS side effects and mechanisms.
However, there were 39% physicians preferred combined EVL with BBS.
Major comments
1. Despite either EVL or BBS for preventing first varicella bleeding was
recommended in practice guideline, there were 39% physicians choosing
combined EVL with BBS. Did the authors survey the physicians’ compliance or
attitude of the practice guideline in interview or before this study?
2. The decision-making might be influenced not only the physician but also the
resources available. Did the survey interview the availability of EVL for each
physician?
3. Most physicians surveyed were worked in fee-for service setting. Was there
difference in decision of combined EVL with BBS decision between physicians
working in different locations?
4. Physician performing EVL needed experience and expertise. For those
physicians with training fellowships both in gastroenterology and hepatology had
different treatment decisions compared to others?
5. In table 1, there are no data showing physicians’ practice location (academic
or non-academic).
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 commpeting interests.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0287-1 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Factors Impacting Physicians' Decisions to Prevent Variceal Hemorrhage
Version:2Date:24 February 2015
Reviewer: Chien-Ning Hsu
Reviewer's report:
In their manuscript Yan and co-workers describe physicians’ characteristics are
associated with treatment preferences for preventing variceal bleeding based on
the analysis of the 110 gastroenterologists online survey results. They report a
larger group of 80 physicians were influenced primarily depending on the ability
to visually confirm eradications of varices, and a small group of 30 physicians
were influenced primarily by the side effect and mechanism of beta blockers.
Factor associated with treatment preference was explored in the study but does
not yield any substantial insight that was not already known.
• Major Compulsory Revisions
1.The authors presented 10 relevant medication attributes to evaluate how
physician decided for prevention of variceal bleeding between beta blockers (BB)
and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) (Fig 2). However, the authors did not
present the relative strength or importance of each medical attribute in the
Best-Worst scaling questions between two distinct groups.
2.Please provide information how 10 medical attributes were identified during the
survey development. According to 39% of physicians chose combination therapy
of BB and EVL, do the authors have a hypothesis about patient-related and
non-clinical features may impact physician choices on treatment?
3.The authors found most respondents stated that less than 25% of their clinical
practice was devoted to patients with liver disease. The results of specific
attributes between BB and EVL groups may only generalize to physicians with
certain experience in cirrhotic patients.
What would be interesting is the study to demonstrate practice patterns of
preventive therapies in cirrhotic patients and identify factors associated with
differences in practice that can reflect physicians concerns in daily care setting
for improvement in primary bleeding prevention.
• Minor Essential Revisions
Please provide a rationale or benefit of using Youden balanced-incomplete block
design in the study.
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/s12876-015-0287-1 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Factors Impacting Physicians' Decisions to Prevent Variceal Hemorrhage
Version:2Date:26 February 2015
Reviewer: Shih-Cheng Yang
Reviewer's report:
NSBBs and EVL have been proven to be effective in preventing first variceal
bleed in cirrhotic patients with moderate/large varices. The choice of treatment
should be based on local resources and expertise, patient preference and
characteristics, side effects, and contra-indications. Kathleen Yan et al. present
an interesting study of Factors Impacting Physicians’ Decisions to prevent
Variceal Hemorrhage. This study highlights the fact that most physicians chose
both BBs and EVL as their preferred choice for prevention of first variceal
hemorrhage. In addition, most
physicians (the majority of whom performed endoscopies and had practices with
a small number (< 25%) of liver patients) prefer to use to use band ligation over
beta-blockers to prevent first variceal bleed in cirrhotic patients.
I have just a few comments to make
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The definition of moderate/large varices should be described clearly
2. Statistical analysis in the manuscript should be rewritten in a section
3. The discussion can be condensed and concentrate on discussing the findings
of the study. I think it would be interesting to discuss why 39% % respondents
choose both BBs and EVL. Due to scenario you provided or physicians' routine
practices?
4.Table 1
Author should provide information about type of physician/level of training.
ex. Fellow/Academic practice/faculty/Private practice
Minor Essential Revisions
1. It's difficult to read Figures 2 which were poorly transcribed onto the pdf
provided.
2. Table 2. Group 1: 33.8% + 20% + 46.3% = 100.1% ?
3. p13, line 249: delete one " Beta-blockers"
Discretionary Revisions
1. Results Physicians’characteristics: A flow chart should be provided, instead of
the redundant description on page 8.
2.Scenario should be described in more details. Are there contraindications to
beta-blockers?. The presence or absence of gastric varices should be described.
Despite the absence of specific data on prophylactic studies, patients with gastric
varices may be treated with NSBB. The presence or absence of red signs (red
wale marks or red spots) on varices should be emphasized.
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/s12876-015-0287-1 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Factors Impacting Physicians' Decisions to Prevent Variceal Hemorrhage
Version:3Date:23 March 2015
Reviewer: Jing-Houng Wang
Reviewer's report:
The authors had revised the manuscript according to the comments partly.
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/s12876-015-0287-1 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Factors Impacting Physicians' Decisions to Prevent Variceal Hemorrhage
Version:3Date:23 March 2015
Reviewer: Chien-Ning Hsu
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the Author
Minor Essential Revisions
The additional table provides much better clear information for relative
importance of each attribute that may influence physicians in making treatment
decisions than figure 2. Please consider moving figure 2 to the appendix section.
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/s12876-015-0287-1 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Factors Impacting Physicians' Decisions to Prevent Variceal Hemorrhage
Version:3Date:23 March 2015
Reviewer: Shih-Cheng Yang
Reviewer's report:
I have no more questions
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/s12876-015-0287-1 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Factors Impacting Physicians' Decisions to Prevent Variceal Hemorrhage
Version:3Date:11 March 2015
Reviewer: Ming-Jen Chen
Reviewer's report:
The reviewers have addressed my previous comments appropriately and I have
no further comments.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0285-3 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:The earliest trough concentration predicts the dose of tacrolimus required
for remission induction therapy in ulcerative colitis patients
Version:2Date:16 January 2015
Reviewer: Xavier Roblin
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions
The authors defined clinical remission , response and failure but they don't
explain if stop of steroids is included in their definitions : clarification
Some patients are also with an immunomodulator: what drug ? are these drugs
continue? is frequent to be under combo therapy in asia?
Report an easy algorithm based on levels at D3 to suggest modifications of dose
in one figure
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 interest
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0285-3 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:The earliest trough concentration predicts the dose of tacrolimus required
for remission induction therapy in ulcerative colitis patients
Version:2Date:14 February 2015
Reviewer: Uri Kopylov
Reviewer's report:
Overall an interesting and useful manuscript. However the presentation of results
is confusing and unclear
Several points:
1)the outcome of trough level- was there any target time to reach it?
2)what were the observed side effects
3) please clarify the algorythm you are suggesting for tacrolimus dose
acceleration
4)should the polymorphism data and the adverse effects be incorporated in such
an algorythm?
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.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0276-4 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Influence of laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy and open gastrectomy on
serum interleukin-6 levels in patients with gastric cancer among Asian
populations
Version:3Date:13 January 2015
Reviewer: Toru Aoyama
Reviewer's report:
The authors reviewed and evaluated the influence of laparoscopic-assisted
gastrectomy (LAG) and open gastrectomy (OG) on serum interleukin-6 (IL-6)
levels in patients with gastric cancer (GC) among Asian populations. The paper
is well written but there are some points to be clarified.
Major comments
1: It is unclear the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The authors need to show the
details of the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the present study.
2: Why the authors only focused the IL-6 to evaluate the influence of LAG and
open OG. Is IL-6 optimal marker to evaluate the surgical stress? More other
cytokines and hormones, such as IL-1, TNF, IFN-c, catecholamine, and
corticosteroids, also are related to surgical stress. How about were these
cytokines or hormones?
3: Was the IL-6 measured same points? If not, it is possible that the level of
surgical stress was not accurately evaluated.
4: The authors should show the patients background. IL-6 might be affected the
patients background.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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.