JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-91 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Constitutive activation of glycogen synthase kinase-3beta correlates with
better prognosis and cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors in human gastric cancer
Version: 7Date:21 July 2010
Reviewer: Regine Schneider-Stock
Reviewer's report:
The authors have answered to all my questions sufficiently. The manuscript is
now suitable for publication.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no financial interests in relation to this paper
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-91 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Constitutive activation of glycogen synthase kinase-3beta correlates with
better prognosis and cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors in human gastric cancer
Version: 7Date:26 July 2010
Reviewer: Gregory Kouraklis
Reviewer's report:
I think that the authors gave satisfactory explanations for the criticism arising
from me and the other two reviewers. Therefore, I recommend the revised article
for publication.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-90 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation of protease and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors on
intestinal cell proliferation, necrosis, apoptosis, electrolyte and water transport
and epithelial barrier function.
Version: 2Date:26 March 2010
Reviewer: Michael George
Reviewer's report:
The authors present an interesting study of the effects of RT and PI, utilized in
HAART of HIV-AIDS patients, on intestinal barrier function. This is an important
unresolved question in the HIV field and one that is extremely difficult to address
in human studies. The relevance of the study is somewhat hindered by its
design, namely testing the effects of the drugs individually, instead of in
combination, and the use of mice and cell lines, all of which limit the ability to
extrapolate interpretation of the data with regard to antiretroviral therapy regimes
in HIV infected humans.
The questions are relevant however, and while some limited answers are
provided within the context of the experimental design, the study would be
significantly strengthened by additional data that should be fairly straightforward
to supply.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1) The morphological measurements in Figure 1 would be strengthened by
presentation of tissue sections (H & E stained) that highlight the differences in
villus height and crypt depth visually.
2) Flow cytometry data showing increased apoptosis and necrosis in the IEC-6
cell line can be supported by parallel in vivo experimental data that should be
readily available. How do apoptosis and necrosis compare in the mouse small
intestine? Mice were treated with the same RT and PI to generate villus and crypt
morphological data and these tissues should presumably be available for
analysis of apoptosis and necrosis as well.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1) The different magnitudes in effects of the different PI and RT used in the study
were not addressed adequately in the Discussion. There is an apparently greater
effect from Nelfinavir than other compounds on cell proliferation and secretion,
and a consistently reduced effect from Didanosine. These findings should be
noted and potential explanations provided.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-90 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation of protease and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors on
intestinal cell proliferation, necrosis, apoptosis, electrolyte and water transport
and epithelial barrier function.
Version: 3Date:17 June 2010
Reviewer: Reiner Ullrich
Reviewer's report:
The major compulsory revisions have been done.
Minor essential revisions:
Please use the correct definition for AIDS also in the abstract.
Discretionary revisions
1) I would still appreciate numerical data on body weight in the manuscript as
well as a reference to a recent review of ART from a first-tier journal in addition or
instead of Refs.1-4
2) It could be helpful if some explanations from the answers to reviewers'
comments would be given in the manuscript.
3) Decimal places could be safely reduced for many numbers given in the text.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-89 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Reproductive life disorders in Italian celiac women. A case-control study.
Version: 1Date:22 January 2010
Reviewer: Eyal Sheiner
Reviewer's report:
This study was aimed to explore the association between celiac disease and
menstrual cycle, gestation and puerperal disorders.
1.I strongly advise the authors to consult an epidemiologist. Since celiac here
was the exposure and not the outcome, this is a cohort study and not a clear
case-control (such as studies investigating risk factors for preterm labor for
example).
2.Also, there are mistakes in the results: for example the OR for amenorrhea is
NOT 33, and the 95% CI is NOT 7.17-151.8, but rather the OR is 10.9; 95% CI
3.1-42.2, P<0.001!!!!!
3.I recommend consulting with Obstetricians, since the lower weight at birth is
actually birthweight etc.
4.The tables should be revised: Table 2: why do we need the "no" line? Just put
the complications (amenorrhea etc). Every reader can than calculate the "no" if
he wishes to do so…
5.Is 49 years old or even 45 years old part of the "childbearing ages"???
6.No need to repeat the results of the tables in the results section.
7.The first sentence of the abstract should be deleted.
8.Use actual p values and not bigger than 0.05. P=0.06 and P=0.999 are both
bigger than 0.05 but give different illustration of the results.
9.English needs revision by a native speaker.
10.Several studies exist regarding this issue, which surprisingly were not
included in the discussion and introduction of this study. The study of Sheiner et
al (Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006 Nov;129(1):41-5. ) found higher rates
of IUGR, and in a subsequent article (Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009
Jan;279(1):1-3.) whether screening for celiac is necessary. Nevertheless, these
studies were not even mentioned by the authors.
11.Discussion is too long and unfocused.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-89 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Reproductive life disorders in Italian celiac women. A case-control study.
Version: 1Date:29 January 2010
Reviewer: Lorete Maria M da Silva Kotze
Reviewer's report:
1. Why only 41.9% of the patients were submitted to intestinal biopsy?
2. Why there is no mention or relation to the severitu of celiac disease and
nutritional status of the patients and the disturbances?
3. There is no mention about the same complaints before and after a gluten-free
diete, and no report about differences for the adhrent and non-adherent women.
4. The crucial point is that the authors do not try to explain the findings:
mechanisms or theories about the subject!
Prof.Lorete Maria da Silva Kotze
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 do not have competing intesressts
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-89 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Reproductive life disorders in Italian celiac women. A case-control study.
Version: 3Date:20 April 2010
Reviewer: Lorete Maria M da Silva Kotze
Reviewer's report:
1. I agree with the reviewer that showed new statistical revision is necessary.
2. Only 41.9% of the patients submitted to intestinal biopsy is a weakness point.
3. They referred the probability of nutritional deficiencies involved in the
problems, but they did not mentioned that the patients were undernourished. I
demonstrated that the problems are independent of the nutritional status of the
patients (KOTZE LMS - Gynecologic and obstetric findings related to nutritional
staus and adherence to a gluten-free diet in Brazilian patients with celiac disease
- J Clin Gastroenterol 2004: 38:567-74). So, more considerations are pertinent
for explain the changes.
4. The results could be distributed in the manner that the readers could
understand easily the findings and the correlation with the clinical practice.
My previous considerations about the other items are the same.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-89 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Reproductive life disorders in Italian celiac women. A case-control study.
Version: 3Date:27 April 2010
Reviewer: Jonas Ludvigsson
Reviewer's report:
I am happy with the changes by the authors.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-87 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Recurrent advanced colonic cancer occurring 11 years after initial
endoscopic piecemeal resection: a case report
Version: 1Date:21 July 2010
Reviewer: Carmelo Luigiano
Reviewer's report:
This is a case of recurrent advanced colonic cancer diagnosed 11 years after
initial endoscopic piecemeal resection of a small (12 mm) sessile sigmoid lesion.
This is an interesting and rare case and deserves to be published.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-87 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Recurrent advanced colonic cancer occurring 11 years after initial
endoscopic piecemeal resection: a case report
Version: 1Date:28 July 2010
Reviewer: jean charles grimaud
Reviewer's report:
without revision
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-88 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence of mood and anxiety disorder in self reported irritable bowel
syndrome (IBS). An epidemiological population based study of women
Version: 1Date:26 April 2010
Reviewer: Bodil Ohlsson
Reviewer's report:
General comment
This is an interesting report dealing about an actual area. I think that the study is
well written in all aspects without one. I do not understand if the subjects are
interviewed personally or by questionnires sent home to them. PLease clarify this
in the methods by one heading called study design. If the subjects are
interviewed personally, this must have taken a lot of time. Were the subjects
contacted by mail or phone? PLease clarify how it practically was performed.
As the psychosomatic aspect was not examined, the authors can not propose
IBS as a psychosomaric disease. The psychiatric sdiseases may be secondary
to chronic abdominal pain. We do not know what come first, the IBS or the
psychiatric problems.May be this information can be extracted from the
interviews.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-88 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence of mood and anxiety disorder in self reported irritable bowel
syndrome (IBS). An epidemiological population based study of women
Version: 2Date:17 June 2010
Reviewer: Bodil Ohlsson
Reviewer's report:
I accept the manuscript without further revision. Sincerely Bodil Ohlsson
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. Bodil Ohlsson
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-88 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence of mood and anxiety disorder in self reported irritable bowel
syndrome (IBS). An epidemiological population based study of women
Version: 2Date:5 July 2010
Reviewer: Vladeta Ajdacic-Gross
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your careful answers.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-86 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Lack of Guanylate Cyclase C results in increased mortality in mice
following liver injury
Version: 2Date:19 February 2010
Reviewer: Scott Swenson
Reviewer's report:
Guanylate cyclase C regulates fluid and electrolyte secretion in the intestine.
GCC is also expressed in neonatal and regenerating liver, where its function is
obscure. The authors tested the hypothesis that absence of GCC would be
deleterious in regenerating liver by administering carbon tetrachloride in knockout
animals compared with controls. They report here that susceptibility to carbon
tetrachloride liver injury and death was increased in GCC knockout mice, through
an increase in hepatocyte apoptosis in the knockout mice. However, the
increased susceptibility of GCC knockout mice was dependent on strain
background, indicating that other genes modify this phenotype.
The paper is well-written and the experiments straightforward. Apoptosis and
proliferation after CCl4 administration were measured by standard TUNEL
assays and PCNA immunostaining. Liver necrosis was quantitated using ImageJ
software. Transcripts for GCC and the ligands guanylin and uroguanylin were
measured by Sybr green quantitative RT-PCR.
The data are presented clearly and the conclusions are supported by the data. I
have no specific concerns which would require additional work.
Two questions that come to mind are:
1. Does the same increased susceptibility to liver injury in GCC knockout mice
occur with other liver injuries, such as partial hepatectomy or acetaminophen
toxicity?
2. Is there an increase in susceptibility to CCl4 or other liver toxins in guanylin or
uroguanylin knockout mice?
These questions may be addressed in future work.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-86 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Lack of Guanylate Cyclase C results in increased mortality in mice
following liver injury
Version: 2Date:9 March 2010
Reviewer: Arndt Vogel
Reviewer's report:
Mann et al. analyzed the role of guanylate cyclase C for CCL4 induced liver
injury in mice . They found that GC-C mice in a mixed background display a
increased mortality following a singly CCL4 injection. This effect was not seen in
mice with a pure C57 background. The work addresses an interesting issue in
principle, but the value of this study in its current form is limited. Overall, the data
provided so far are preliminary. Furthermore the manuscript is very descriptive
the exact mechanisms of the observed effects remain unclear.
Major comments:
- The apoptosis data are so far not very convincing. Personally, I do not think that
CCL4 induces apoptosis at all. The authors need to employ additional assays
such as caspase-3 activity by Western blot, activity assay and
immunohistochemistry to convincingly show that there is apoptosis following
CCL4. TUNEL staining is not at all specific for apoptosis. The authors should
also do TUNEL staining at later staining; they will actually see an further increase
in TUNEL positive cells.
- I actually do not understand why the mice gain weight during the first days after
CCL4 injection. Some of the mice almost double their relative liver weight. I
hardly believe that this is the result of liver regeneration. Do the mice loose
weight or do the really again liver weight?
- Why do the KO mice die still die at day 5-9? As shown by the authors liver
injury resolves after 2-3 days following CCL4 challenge and liver regeneration is
obviously not severely impaired in the KO mice.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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 10.1186/1471-230X-10-86 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Lack of Guanylate Cyclase C results in increased mortality in mice
following liver injury
Version: 3Date:1 July 2010
Reviewer: Scott Swenson
Reviewer's report:
Major revisions - none
Minor revisions - typo on page 12
"GC-C has been localized to non-parenchymal cells and hepTatocytes [15, 31]
and"
Discretionary revisions - none
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-86 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Lack of Guanylate Cyclase C results in increased mortality in mice
following liver injury
Version: 3Date:11 July 2010
Reviewer: Arndt Vogel
Reviewer's report:
Mann et al. resubmitted their revised manuscript in which they analyzed the role
of guanylate cyclase C for CCL4 induced liver injury in mice. Overall the
manuscript is improved, but it is still very descriptive. Nevertheless, the authors
report two interesting findings. First, the increased mortality of GC-C mice in the
mixed background following CCl4 and additionally, the increased apoptosis
sensitivity of the GC-C mice. It would be interesting to see whether the BL6 mice
also display an increased apoptosis sensitivity. Unfortunately, both findings
remain unexplained. I do not agree with the authors that the increased number of
apoptotic cells explains the increased mortality of the GC-C mice.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-85 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:A meta-analysis for the effect of prophylactic GTN on the incidence of
post-ERCP pancreatitis and on the successful rate of cannulation of bile ducts
Version: 2Date:22 March 2010
Reviewer: Ming-Hua Zheng
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential 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 10.1186/1471-230X-10-85 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:A meta-analysis for the effect of prophylactic GTN on the incidence of
post-ERCP pancreatitis and on the successful rate of cannulation of bile ducts
Version: 3Date:30 June 2010
Reviewer: Ming-Hua Zheng
Reviewer's report:
Accept without revision
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-84 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Chemical gastritis after chronic bromazepam intake: a case report
Version: 1Date:24 March 2010
Reviewer: Angelo Paulo Paolo Ferrari
Reviewer's report:
Major Revision
The author reports on a single case of a 82-year-old patients with GERD-like
symptoms in whom upper endoscopy revealed duodenal mucosal discoloration
and histopathology findings could be compatible with bromazepam chronic
intake. Because of the lacking regarding temporal symptoms (the patient has
been taking the drug for two years) it is very difficult to state that such alterations
were secondary to the drug, although, the theoretical argument proposed is very
elegant. Maybe the authors could screen other people taking the drug for such
long periods to be sure that the association is possible.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-84 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Chemical gastritis after chronic bromazepam intake: a case report
Version: 1Date:7 July 2010
Reviewer: Marjorie Walker
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting report of a rare condition which provides useful infomation
for practising gastroenterologists and histopathologists.
Minor Essential Revisions
The grammar needs thorough revision before publication
Figure 3 requires a low power histology view to show the chemical gastritis
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-83 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Rapid Induction of Orthotopic Hepatocellular Carcinoma in
Immune-competent Rats by Ultrasound-guided Method and the Subsequent
Metronomic Chemotherapy
Version: 2Date:3 May 2010
Reviewer: Francesco Bertolini
Reviewer's report:
Major:
- The concept of metronomic chemotherapy is not from Hanahan. The two
seminal papers in the field are from Browder/folkman (Cancer Res), and from the
Kerbel lab (J Clin Invest).
- A treatment for only 7 days, albeit daily, can not be considered as metronomic.
In fact, the concept of metronomic chemotherapy implies a long treatment with
no breaks, and 7 days are a short period. Authors should a) discuss this issue or
b) report the results of their preclinical findings as "7-day treatment" and not as
metronomic or c) study the effect of this drug for a longer period of time.
- The preclinical efficacy of metronomic chemotherapy in HCC has beeen
recently reported by the Kerbel lab (Tang et al, Neoplasia 2010;12:264-74).
These data should be discussed and compared with results reported in the
current manuscript.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-83 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Rapid Induction of Orthotopic Hepatocellular Carcinoma in
Immune-competent Rats by Ultrasound-guided Method and the Subsequent
Low-dose Chemotherapy
Version: 3Date:28 June 2010
Reviewer: Francesco Bertolini
Reviewer's report:
The paper has been improved and I am satisfied with the amendments made
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-83 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Rapid Induction of Orthotopic Hepatocellular Carcinoma in
Immune-competent Rats by Ultrasound-guided Method and the Subsequent
Low-dose Chemotherapy
Version: 3Date:30 June 2010
Reviewer: Urban Emmenegger
Reviewer's report:
The concerns raised have been addressed in sufficient manner. A few minor
revisions can be made by the authors without the need for another round of
reviewing.
(1) page 9: 900 mg/sqm of epirubicin corresponds to approximately 300 mg/kg of
epirubicin in mice, using a commonly applied conversion factor of 3. This should
be corrected.
(2) page 13: the authors may want to indicate the formula used for calculation of
tumor volumes.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-82 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:The role of prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) in toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4)-mediated
colitis-associated neoplasia
Version: 1Date:24 February 2010
Reviewer: Jin-Kyung Kim
Reviewer's report:
The authors claim that their work demonstrated that exogenous PGE2
administration increase colitis-associated tumorigenesis via activation of EGFR
signaling pathway and dysregulation of PGE2 synthesis in TLR4 KO mice.
I have a few minor concerns that need to be addressed.
Fig. 2B,
Size-bar should be indicated.
Fig. 3C,
The levels of 15d-PGJ2 of colon in experimental groups were shown by
bar-graph. If the PGE2 levels were shown same pattern (not just explain in the
text), the audience easily understand that PGE2 administration affects the
balance between 15d-PGJ2 and PGE2.
Could the author explain the reason(s) how PGE2 administration increased the
level of 15d-PGJ2 in colon.
Fig. 4A,
Magnification and size-bar should be indicated.
Fig. 5A,
The author showed the mRNA levels of AR to explain PGE2 regulate
EGFR-signaling pathway in TLR4 KO mice. Based on their previous work (2007),
they showed the protein levels of AR. How about the protein levels in the present
study ?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-82 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:The role of prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) in toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4)-mediated
colitis-associated neoplasia
Version: 1Date:26 February 2010
Reviewer: Naofumi Mukaida
Reviewer's report:
Major comment
There are numerous reports, which indicate the indispensable roles of
COX-2-mediated prostaglandin E2 in colon carcinogenesis. The authors
demonstrated that COX-2 is present downstream TLR-4. Thus, the data in the
present paper seems to be confirmatory. The authors also tried to elucidate the
molecular mechanisms underlying prostaglandin E2-induced acceleration of
colon carcinogenesis. Low dose of prostaglandin increased the amount of
amphiregulin and phosphorylated EGF receptor without enhancing cell
proliferation. Thus, it is unlikely that amphiregulin and EGF receptor system can
be involved in prostaglandin E2-induced acceleration of colon carcinogenesis.
Thus, the authors are encouraged to provide mechanistic insights on the effects
of prostaglandin E2.
Specific comments
#1. Table 1. Tumor incidence in WT mice was calculated as 92.3 %, although the
authors used only 7 WT mice. The calculation seems to be wrong. The range of
percentage of mucosal surface with tumor is 1-40 and 1-5, in WT and
PBS-treated TLR4 KO mice, respectively. However, the incidence of these two
groups is not 100 %. Thus, the lower range of these two groups should be 0.
#2. Figure 3 B and C. The authors should describe the dose of prostaglandin E2
used in these experiments. In Fig. 3C, 15-d-PGJ2 levels should be compared
with untreated group.
#3. Figure 6A. The used dose of prostaglandin E2 should be described.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-82 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:The role of prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) in toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4)-mediated
colitis-associated neoplasia
Version: 3Date:10 May 2010
Reviewer: Naofumi Mukaida
Reviewer's report:
It is widely known that COX-2 is downstream of TLR-4 and that COX-2-derived
prostaglandin (PG) E2 plays a central role in colon carcinogenesis. The authors
speculated that exogenous PGE2 disturb the balance between prostaglandin E2
and 15d-PGJ2, thereby accelerating colon carcinogenesis, but they failed to
provide any experimental evidence. Moreover, the authors demonstrated that
PGE2 could increase the amount of AR and phosphorylation of EGF receptor
without any effects on proliferation and apoptosis of colon epithelial cells. In
conclusion, the authors failed to provide any definitive mechanistic insights on
how PGE2 can promote colon carcinogenesis, even in this revised text.
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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-82 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:The role of prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) in toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4)-mediated
colitis-associated neoplasia
Version: 3Date:18 May 2010
Reviewer: Shin Maeda
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript became acceptable.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-82 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:The role of prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) in toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4)-mediated
colitis-associated neoplasia
Version: 4Date:18 June 2010
Reviewer: Tsutomu Chiba
Reviewer's report:
I think this paper is now acceptable without revision.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-81 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Life-Threatening Hemobilia Caused by Hepatic Pseudoaneurysm After
T-tube Choledochostomy: Report of A Case
Version: 1Date:7 March 2010
Reviewer: Vincenzo Napolitano
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
-there are a lot of language mistakes: the paper must be corrected
-I read that the patient recovered well but remained in your unit for a lot of time
(you talk about 19th postoperative day). a lot of time for a cholecistectomy? I'd
like you would clarify this
-You say that there are no report about hemobilia due to t-tube but any foreign
bodies can lead pseudoaneurysm formation
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-81 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Life-Threatening Hemobilia Caused by Hepatic Pseudoaneurysm After
T-tube Choledochostomy: Report of A Case
Version: 1Date:10 March 2010
Reviewer: Nuno Almeida
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors:
I reviewed with enthusiasm your article entitled “Life-threatening hemobilia
caused by hepatic pseudoaneurysm after T-tube choledochostomy: report of a
case”. I think this is an interesting and well documented case, reporting a rare
complication of a relatively frequent surgical procedure.
I have only some minor suggestions:
- Page 5, “… acute calculous cholecystitis…”
- Page 7, “Because hemobilia was highly suspected and contrasted…” for
“Because hemobilia was highly suspected a contrast…”
- Page 8, “…embolization…” and not “…embolozation…”
- Page 9, “… infection…” and “…transhepatic…”
With kind regards.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-81 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Life-Threatening Hemobilia Caused by Hepatic Pseudoaneurysm After
T-tube Choledochostomy: Report of A Case
Version: 2Date:26 May 2010
Reviewer: Vincenzo Napolitano
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
no revisions
Minor Essential Revisions
correct some language mistakes
Discretionary Revisions
no revisions
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-80 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Granulocytic sarcoma of the pancreas: A case report and review of the
literatures
Version: 1Date:30 January 2010
Reviewer: massimo breccia
Reviewer's report:
Rong et al described a case of granulocytic sarcoma of the pancreas.
Unfortunately this paper did not add particular and important informations as
compared to previous published data. It is a confirmatory single case report.
Others reports included not a single case, but small series of patients highlighted
the importance of intensive chemotherapy in isolated GS without bone marrow
infiltration. This paper must include the type of therapy and post-consolidation
therapy the patient made.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-80 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Granulocytic sarcoma of the pancreas: A case report and review of the
literatures
Version: 1Date:31 January 2010
Reviewer: Simon R Bramhall
Reviewer's report:
This is a brief report on an unusual disease occuring in the pancreatic head. I
believe that it is worthy of publication but the standard of English is a little poor
and would benefit from editing by somebody with English as their native
language.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-80 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Granulocytic sarcoma of the pancreas: A case report and review of the
literatures
Version: 1Date:15 February 2010
Reviewer: Michael E McFarlane
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
The paper should be arranged as follows:
Abstract, Background,Case Presentation, Discussion,Conclusions.
A conclusion has not been included and the discussion is incorrectly named
conclusion.
There are a number of grammatical errors that need to be corrected including
incomplete sentences and syntax errors.
Minor Revisions:
1.In the last paragraph in the discussion it should be more clearly stated that
granulocytic sarcoma should be treated primarily with chemotherapy since it
rarely presents as an isolated disease and is usually the manifestation of a
systemic condition. These tumours are usually responsive to chemotherapy
hence chemotherapy has a secondary role in their management.
2.The caption for figure 2. reads "Infiltration of caecal appendix by immature
neoplastic myeloid cells"
What is the relevance of "caecal appendix" to a pathologic specimen of a
Whipple resection? Was the appendix removed incidentally and if so this should
be stated in the case report?
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-78 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Meta-analysis of radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection for
hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 1Date:24 January 2010
Reviewer: Linda M Wong
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. The authors have studied 10 trials of liver resection vs RFA for hepatocellular
cancer and performed a meta-analysis to try to determine which of the two
therapies is superior. The problem and the question posed by the authors are
well defined however the inclusion and exclusion criteria are not so clear. Was
there a tumor size criteria for inclusion or exclusion? Did this exclude any patient
that may have been rescued by liver transplant for failure of the initial therapy?
Were they all cirrhotics? Differences in viral hepatitis? Patients undergoing these
two treatments may be rather heterogeneous which is why it is so difficult to
conduct a randomized clinical trial.
2. The data is sound and they do mention the limitations in the discussion.
However, could they expand more on the populations of the trials – in terms of
age, tumor number, tumor size, Child –Pugh score etc. This appears to be on the
supplemental table but this is not discussed in the results section or the
discussion.
3. Although the meta-analysis suggests that there is no difference in the early
survival at 1 and 3 years, there is a survival advantage at 5 yrs for hepatic
resection. Is this because the liver resection patients were younger, had better
liver function, were not cirrhotic, had smaller tumors or something else? It’s not
clear that a meta-analysis would be able to sort this out, but they should at least
comment on this.
4. The title and abstract seem to convey what has been found and the writing is
acceptable, but perhaps they need to say that this is a meta-analysis of RFA vs
HR for small HCC, if that is their inclusion criteria otherwise the reader is just not
sure what this study covers.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-78 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Meta-analysis of radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection for
hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 1Date:28 January 2010
Reviewer: Kazutaka Kurokohchi
Reviewer's report:
Review for Meta-analysis of radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection for
hepatocellular carcinoma by Zhou et. al.
The present study represents the results of systemic review and meta-analysis
of studies comparing the therapeutic effects against hepatocellular carcinoma
(HCC) between hepatic resection (HR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA).
Authors analyzed overall survival, local intrahepatic recurrence, disease-free
survival rates etc., and concluded that HR was superior to RFA in the treatment
of patients with HCC eligible for surgical treatments.
Major concern: As everyone knows at present, adaptation of RFA is considered
to be suitable for HCC within 3 nodules and 3 cm in diameter in the liver. It is
important to treat HCCs within 3 nodules, 3cm in diameter in the liver and those
over 3 nodules, 3 cm separately. Thus, in case comparing the therapeutic effects
of HR and RFA for HCC, the number and size of HCCs should be adjusted
between HR and RFA. In this manuscript, authors show there was no significant
difference in overall and disease-free survival between HR and RFA groups for
patients with tumors < 3cm. Therefore, content of conclusions can not be
accepted as it is in this manuscript. Analysis and conclusions should be changed
according to the tumor number and size in the liver.
The manuscript should be reconsidered for publication after major revision.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-78 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Meta-analysis of radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection for
hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 1Date:9 February 2010
Reviewer: Guy J Maddern
Reviewer's report:
I believe there are no areas in this manuscript that require significant and
essential revision.
On page 6, second line: RFA has been incorrectly described as FRA. This is a
correction that would need to be made prior to the manuscript being published.
In a number of places within the manuscript some spelling errors have occurred.
The manuscript is well constructed and follows the format of a systematic review.
Its conclusions are well supported by the data.
The topic of radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection remains
controversial and the discussion is an important one to have. It is unfortunate that
only one randomised controlled trial exists. It may be useful if the authors were
able to at least look at the different outcomes that occurred with laparoscopic and
percutaneous radiofrequency albation versus open radiofrequency ablation. This
would be an important area to segment and assess whether or not there were
different outcomes associated with the procedures that have greater difficulty in
assessing disseminated involvement within the liver. This would certainly add
further weight to the study.
I would recommend that this be accepted after minor but essential revisions.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-78 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Meta-analysis of radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection for small
hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 2Date:15 April 2010
Reviewer: Kazutaka Kurokohchi
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is now acceptable for publication in the 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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-78 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Meta-analysis of radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection for small
hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 2Date:17 April 2010
Reviewer: Linda M Wong
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Table 2: "motality" should be "mortality"
2. Abstract: First sentence, ".....better therapy (HR vs RFA)to small hepatocellular
cancer", should probably change "to" to "for"
3. Authors should make a comment as to whether the studies included in this
meta-analysis mentioned if recurrences were treated with salvage liver
transplant. This could make a particular difference in the tumors <3 cm, as more
of these would be likely to qualify for transplant with Milan Criteria.\
4. Abstract: Conclusions: "For tumors <3 cm HR did not differ significantly from
RFA for survival as reported in three NRCTs". Are these patients with single
tumors <3 cm or would this include patients with any tumor < 3cm? Same issue
with table 3 -- this is single tumor< 3 cm.
5. You do make the comment that RFA patients were more likely to have less
favourable characteristics such as multiple nodules in the discussion, however do
the studies give you any insight on the value of HR vs RFA for single vs multiple
tumors? You may want to comment on this as well.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-79 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Mouse model of carbon tetrachloride induced liver fibrosis:
Histopathological changes and expression of CD133 and epidermal growth factor
Version: 1Date:11 December 2009
Reviewer: Biserka Radosevic-Stasic
Reviewer's report:
The article presents interesting and novel data about expression of CD133 and
epidermal growth factor (EGF) in chronically injured and neoplastic liver tissues
in mice subjected to ingestion of carbon tetrachloride (CCl4). Results, based on
histopathological analysis, quantitative real time-PCR determination, ELISA and
Western blotting showed that intoxication with CCl4 after 15 weeks induces in the
liver a fibrosis (without other signs of cirrhosis) and hepatocellular carcinomas,
with high upregulation CD133 and significant downregulation of EGF protein and
EGFR mRNA. The findings were followed by increased expression of
representative markers of hepatic stellate cells (desmin and GFAP), suggesting
these CD133+ cells contribute to liver regeneration and tumor progression in A/J
mice. Since similar changes were not observed in humans and rats, it was
concluded that species-specific differences exist in chronic liver diseases. The
hypothesis needs to be confirmed by immunohistochemistry and FACS analysis,
but the experiments were designed appropriately, the methodology was precise,
and the discussion supports the results.
Discretionary Revisions
In the Material and Methods: (Animals and Experimental design) a link to Figure
1 should be added (probably after “Research Animal Care” …. top, second
line…. “As shown on Fig. 1”
In Results: (in section EGF and EGFR expression line 8: (Fig. 3C). “And” should
be deleted.
In Discussion: (line 7) did not developed although HCC….. instead of did not
developed. Although HCC……
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'