JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-12-79 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:13-Year Mortality Trends among Hospitalized Patients with Inflammatory
Bowel Disease
Version: 1Date:19 March 2012
Reviewer: Smita Halder
Reviewer's report:
Minor revision
1) This may be an error made when the paper was uploaded into a pdf
document, but the methods section was placed right at the end of the paper (so
the background and results sections ran consecutively).
General comments.
2) This paper addresses an interesting question regarding hospital mortality rates
in IBD patients. Community point estimate studies have shown no absolute
increase in IBD mortality rates compared to healthy controls, but there is no
information on changes in rates within the IBD population.
In comparison, there seems to be an increased risk of mortality in hospitalised
IBD patients (cf controls) through mainly thromboembolic disease or hospital
acquired infections. Again, though there are little data on trends, so this paper
seems to fill in the gaps.
The study uses sound methodology and a well described and validated
database.
The results are well presented but, unfortunately, I could not view Figure 1 in the
pdf version. I am assuming it was a simple bar chart.
3) A major limitation in the study is the fact that data on the cause of death were
not available, so IBD could be one of a multitude of conditions causing the study
subjects to be hospitalised. However, the authors do concede this obstacle and
try and speculate on reasons why rates have dropped over the years.
4) One issue that the authors could perhaps expand on in the discussion, is why
mortality is higher in UC patients than CD patients.
Overall, I enjoyed reviewing this paper and would recommend its 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 declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-12-77 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Immunophenotype classification and therapeutic outcomes of Chinese
primary gastrointestinal diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
Version: 2Date:22 May 2012
Reviewer: Bogna Ziarkiewicz-Wroblewska
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. The pages of manuscript are not numbered, which makes the revision difficult.
So I gave the numbers myself....
a) page 5: the number of reference is neededin the 6th line after the name
"Dawson"
b) I found some spelling mistakes; for example:
- two dots - page 5
- DLBLC - page 9
- confirm(ed) diagnosis - page 3
- ; T(t)he third type - page 10
Discretionary Revisions
1. The current WHO classification of tumours of haematopoietic and lymphoid
tissues divides DLBCL into 3 immunohistochemical groups: GCB, non-GCB, and
CD5 positive DLBCL. It might be interesting to examine CD5 expression, and its
relation to the clinical parameters assessed by authors.
2. Three months of follow-up seems to be very short in monitoring the results of
DLBCL treatment. I think 6 months is the minimum; maybe it would be
reasonable to exclude the cases observed less than 6 months from the analysis.
3. Five patients treated with R-CHOP in GCB group are not sufficient for
statistical analysis, and to draw the conclusion.
4. Tables 1 and 2 can be joined.
5. Fig. 1 is very clear and facilitates immunohistochemical results interpretation -
but I am not sure, if it is really necessary.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-12-76 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Comparative analysis of inflamed and non-inflamed colon biopsies reveals
strong proteomic inflammation profile in patients with ulcerative colitis
Version: 3Date:28 May 2012
Reviewer: Grainne Lennon
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions
Results section:
Line 216-217 & Figure 2: The authors refer to differences in the grouping of
samples from patients 9, 14 & 8. However within the corresponding figure the
samples are labelled according to biopsy number rather than patient number. To
improve the clarity of this figure, it would benefit from including a note within the
figure legend stating the relevant biopsy numbers which correspond to these
patients.
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-12-76 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Comparative analysis of inflamed and non-inflamed colon biopsies reveals
strong proteomic inflammation profile in patients with ulcerative colitis
Version: 3Date:4 June 2012
Reviewer: Ryan Stidham
Reviewer's report:
Prior Major Revision Suggestions:
1. Clearly state in the abstract and background that the purpose of this work is to
describe the proteomic profile in ulcerative colitis, not the express discovery of
new biomarkers: The authors have altered the text to better characterize their
conclusions.
2. Narrow the UC cohort to identical medical therapy (all 5-ASA, all treatment
naïve, etc) including non-IBD medications and reanalyze the data. This should be
possible given the small number of patients necessary to enroll: Appreciate
author's thoughtful response, and agree that they present reasonable justification
to conclude that variation in 5-ASA use did not impact results.
3. Add a non-IBD inflammation control group (i.e. C diff colitis distal colon
biopsies) for comparison and clarification of proteins unique to IBD related
inflammation: I still suggest a Non-IBD colitis positive control. However, this will
not be practical for the authors and their results and conclusion are a valuable
addition to IBD-related proteomic research.
4. Please provide histology inflammation grading for UC cohort: Sufficient
clarification.
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' below. If your reply is yes to any,
please give details below.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-12-75 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:AFI facilitates the detection rate of colon adenoma, particularly flat &
depressed adenoma, for less-experienced endoscopists, but not for specialists
Version: 1Date:6 December 2011
Reviewer: Takahisa Matsuda
Reviewer's report:
The authors hold a body of data which is valuable, however, I have the following
comments.
Major:
1. As for the number of cases, authors should describe the study design and
statistical methods more in detail.
2. The authors described that “past studies possess a potential bias because
both endoscopic examinations are performed by the same endoscopist and the
second endoscopic diagnosis was therefore influenced by the findings of the first
endoscopy” in the discussion. I think it is very important issue, however, why not
randomize the initial observation in this prospective study? Please explain about
this issue in the discussion 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 10.1186/1471-230X-12-75 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Back-to-Back Comparison of Auto-Fluorescence Imaging (AFI) versus High
Resolution White Light Colonoscopy for Adenoma Detection
Version: 4Date:25 February 2012
Reviewer: Takahisa Matsuda
Reviewer's report:
1. Regarding the sample size calculation, the authors explained its method just
for the point-by-point response to the Editor. It should be described in the
manuscript (Methods section).
2. A portion of the text is repeated (e.g. Background, page 7, line 9- and
Discussion, page 15, line 9-). Background should be shortened.
3. Table 2; As for the p-value of detection rate for “all adenoma” and “flat and
depressed adenoma” by HRE and AFI, authors reported that the detection rate of
AFI was significantly higher than that of HRE. Is it right? Please recheck and
confirm the p-value again statistically.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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 10.1186/1471-230X-12-75 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Back-to-Back Comparison of Auto-Fluorescence Imaging (AFI) versus High
Resolution White Light Colonoscopy for Adenoma Detection
Version: 4Date:11 March 2012
Reviewer: Gianluca Rotondano
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions
1. reference # 21 is still incorrect as for names and surnames of the Japanese
authors, please correct with surnames first and names afterwards
2. reference # 24 is no longer in press but is indexed on the PubMed
(Int J Colorectal Dis. 2012 Mar;27(3):331-6)
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-12-74 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Hepatitis C virus E2 protein involve in insulin resistance through an
impairment of Akt/PKB and GSK3beta signaling in hepatocytes
Version: 2Date:23 April 2012
Reviewer: marcello persico
Reviewer's report:
This is well written and interesting manuscript and we believe it might be
accepted for publication.
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-12-74 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Hepatitis C virus E2 protein involve in insulin resistance through an
impairment of Akt/PKB and GSK3beta signaling in hepatocytes
Version: 2Date:9 May 2012
Reviewer: yuan-soon ho
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript from Hsieh et al. describes the potential role of E2 protein from
HCV genotype 1b in T2DM. The authors have investigated the effects of HCV E2
on insulin signaling, and found that E2 has the ability to induce insulin resistance.
The manuscript provided some interesting aspects of E2 function, especially with
respect to SOCS3 upregulation. However, there are several defects in the data
and their interpretation. My comments on the manuscript were as mentioned
below.
Major criticisms:
1. Ikuo Shoji published a very nice paper in 2011 (Shoji et al, 2011) showing that
HCV-induced down-regulation of GLUT2 expression and up-regulation of
gluconeogenesis. This suggests that high concentration of glucose in
HCV-infected hepatocytes, although interpretation of their data should be
cautioned because they used a HCV J6/JFH1-infected cells. It seems that this
too could be part of the discussion in this manuscript.
2. Figure 2 does not show much significant difference in IRS-1 status. Moreover,
the actin bands too strong to make it difficult for loading comparison. The
immunoblots should be done more clear, and quantification of each bands need
to be done more precisely, with SD.
3. Figure 4: The effect of MG132 was not very significant. The immunoblots
should be done more clear, it would help to include scanned data with lower actin
level for proper comparison.
4. In Figure 5, the mark of phosphorylation is confusing. Please use uniform style
for phosphorylation of Akt and GSK3beta in all figures and quantification of each
band.
Minor criticisms:
In Figure 2C and 6B, the statistical analysis should be done between FLAG and
E2.
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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-12-71 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Extent of liver inflammation in predicting response to Interferon alpha &
Ribavirin in chronic hepatitis C patients: a cohort study
Version: 1Date:4 June 2011
Reviewer: Claudio Puoti
Reviewer's report:
This is a retrospective study aimed at comparing the rate of End of Treatment
Response (ETR) according to the severity of liver inflammation in 672 patients
with chronic hepatitis C (CHC), treated for 24 weeks with Interferon # plus
Ribavirin.
The first goal of this study was to compare ETR in CHC patients with higher
grades to those with lower grades of pretreatment liver inflammation, while the
secondary objective was to determine diagnostic accuracy ALT for pretreatment
grades of inflammation ascertained by modified HAI for grading liver
inflammation on liver biopsy in CHC patients.
The study is interesting and well written, and the sample size is actually huge;
furthermore, the aim of this paper is interesting, as in the majority of available
studies the role of fibrosis rather than liver histological activity has been
examined.
However, this paper presents two major pitfalls, that the authors should better
explain:
- in first, it is well known that the current standard of care (SoC) of CHC is PEG
IFN plus RBV; I have not understood if the patients in study were treated with
recombinant IFN or Pegylated IFN. If r-IFN was offered, the authors should
specify the reasons for a rather outdated treatment (e.g., local resources, etc).
- secondly, having this huge sample of patients, the authors should have to
evaluate the sustained virological response (SVR), which is more relevant than
the simple ETR.
I look forward the response to these two questions, that could immensely
increase the strength of this paper.
Other comments:
1. In Table 1 (5th column) the reported total number is 672 (410+262) and not
876.
2. the genotype distribution in this series of patients should be reported in the
result section and in Table 1, rather than in the discussion (page 15).
3. HCV type was available only in 101 patients (page 15); thus it is possible that
patients with genotype 1, requiring at least 48 wk of treatment, were treated only
for 24 weeks. If this is true, this is an important bias that the authors should
absolutely clarify.
4. I strongly suggest to add HCV RNA data, if this information is available.
5. Dosage of IFN and ribavirin are not reported.
6. several typing errors should be checked (e.g., (TLC)), Hepatology 199624(4),
etc).
7. References should be updated, at least adding the more recent EASL 2011
Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of HCV infection, available
online.
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
Claudio Puoti, MD
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-12-71 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Extent of liver inflammation in predicting response to Interferon alpha &
Ribavirin in chronic hepatitis C patients: a cohort study
Version: 1Date:11 June 2011
Reviewer: Masayuki Kurosaki
Reviewer's report:
This study by Mirz et al described the associations between grade of liver
inflammation and response to interferon plus RBV therapy. They also found that
ALT correlated with severe inflammation on liver biopsy.
Majour comment
Liver fibrosis is usually a significant predictor of response to IFN plus RBV
therapy. The authors should show the association between fibrosis and treatment
response. Since inflammation was significantly associated with fibrosis, the
authors should also show that inflammation is an independent predictor of
response by multivariate analysis including fibrosis.
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-12-71 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Extent of liver inflammation in predicting response to Interferon alpha &
Ribavirin in chronic hepatitis C patients: a cohort study
Version: 2Date:6 August 2011
Reviewer: Masayuki Kurosaki
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
I agree with the author that liver inflammation may be one of the factors for liver
fibrosis. However, liver inflammation is not the sole determinant of liver fibrosis.
Thus, it is premature to regard liver fibrosis as not being a confounding factor. I
feel a sense of discomfort to exclude liver fibrosis, an established predictor of
response to therapy, from the analysis by design. Therefore, I suggest the
authors to present their data on the association between liver fibrosis and
treatment outcome, and to perform a multivariable analysis including fibrosis or
an analysis stratified by the stage of liver fibrosis.
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-12-71 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Extent of liver inflammation in predicting response to Interferon alpha &
Ribavirin in chronic hepatitis C patients: a cohort study
Version: 2Date:7 August 2011
Reviewer: Claudio Puoti
Reviewer's report:
Dr Mirza and coworkers did modify their paper according to suggestions, thus
I've no further recommendations to suggest.
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-12-71 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Extent of liver inflammation in predicting response to Interferon alpha &
Ribavirin in chronic hepatitis C patients: a cohort study
Version: 2Date:21 September 2011
Reviewer: Toshifumi Hibi
Reviewer's report:
Authors indicated that there was a significant relationship between extent of liver
inflammation and end-of-treatment response (ETR) and that the value of ALT
could predict the extent of liver inflammation and ETR. This manuscript could not
be acceptable without additional revision of some points described below.
Major points
1.They related that high grade inflammation group significantly differed from low
grade inflammation group with respect to liver fibrosis (p<0.01) in the chapter of
“Result” (page 12). Why don’t they add the factor of liver fibrosis stage in the
analysis of relationship between inflammation grade and ETR? This must be
important because it has been reported that fibrosis stage is one of the significant
factors for SVR.
2.They divided the degree of inflammation into two groups, high grade (moderate
or severe inflammation) and low grade (minimal or mild) in the chapter of “study
variables and data management procedures” (page 8). Moreover, they analyzed
the relationship between inflammation grade and ETR in these two groups, and
concluded that the ETR in the group with high grade inflammation was
significantly higher than that in the group with low grade. Why don’t they analysis
the ROC curve for validity of pretreatment ALT between these two groups, that
is, minimal/mild and moderate/severe (Figure 3, 4, and 5)?
3.Even though there are no relationship between inflammation grade and SVR,
they should indicate these results.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-12-71 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Extent of liver inflammation in predicting response to Interferon alpha &
Ribavirin in chronic hepatitis C patients: a cohort study
Version: 4Date:7 February 2012
Reviewer: Toshifumi Hibi
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions
I still consider that they should add the factor of liver fibrosis stage in the analysis
of relationship between inflammation grade and ETR.
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 have no financial competing interest.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-12-72 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Dilemma of endoscopic features of solitary rectal ulcer syndrome.
Version: 2Date:9 March 2012
Reviewer: Ala I Sharara
Reviewer's report:
This is a relatively large single-center retrospective study reporting on the clinical
and endoscopic findings of the solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SUS). The paper is
relatively well-written and the data presented in good sequence. The title should
perhaps be changed to “The clinical and endoscopic spectrum of the solitary
rectal ulcer syndrome: A single-center experience of 116 cases” given that the
paper details both spectrums. Unfortunately, some of the figures are of poor
quality.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-12-72 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Dilemma of endoscopic features of solitary rectal ulcer syndrome.
Version: 2Date:22 April 2012
Reviewer: Alireza Keshtgar
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory revision
The authors should emphasise in the discussion that the neoplastic lesions of
adenoma and adenocarcinoma has been reported as an association with SRUS
and there is no established causal relationship in the literature.
Minor Essential Revisions
The authors should describe in methodology the criteria for diagnosis of acute
and chronic inflammation on histology.
The figures 6, 8 and 9 can be removed.
In the figure 7 the histology micrograph figures 7C and 7D have been mislabelled
as figures 10 and 11 in the manuscript.
The figure 10 should include markers to clearly demonstrate the finding of 'rectal
glands separated by splaying smooth muscle fibers and fibrosis', which is
referred to in the mislabelled figure 7C.
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-12-70 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:A comparison of the temporary placement of 3 different self-expanding
stents for the treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures: A prospective
multicentre study
Version: 1Date:11 May 2012
Reviewer: Stuart Gordon
Reviewer's report:
This is a prospective, non-randomized study of patients with refractory benign
esophageal strictures treated with 3 types of stents. Stent placement was a late
step in the management of this difficult problem and the results reflect that.
Though the minority of patients in the study achieved long term success, it
appears that biodegradable stents or fully covered self-expanding metal stents
are preferable to self-expanding plastic stents which are associated with more
frequent stent migration, more reinterverntions and fewer cases of long-term
improvement (though not statistically signficant).
In general, the methods are well described and the data/results appear sound
and are well outlined.
Furthermore, the discussion and conclusions are well balanced and supported by
the data. Limitations are clearly stated and the authors do a good job in
acknowledging previously published studies.
Major Revisions: none
Minor Revisions:
1. Since the study is not randomized, please describe more clearly how the type
of stent was chosen. Was it at the discretion of the endoscopist, or was it done
consecutively (for instance 10 SEPS, then 10 biodegradable, then 10 SEMS)?
2. Paragraph 6 in Results: would change wording to: "In our study, 30% of
patients in the biodegradable stent group were dsyphagia free..."
3. Typo in Table 1, column 1 Post-surgical 4 out of 10 should be (40%) not (10%)
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 10.1186/1471-230X-12-69 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:A low level of serum total testosterone is independently associated with
nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
Version: 4Date:14 May 2012
Reviewer: Lars Moeller
Reviewer's report:
I have no further objections against 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 declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-12-69 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:A low level of serum total testosterone is independently associated with
nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
Version: 4Date:16 May 2012
Reviewer: Andreas Geier
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer's report
Title: A low level of serum total testosterone is independently associated with
nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
Version: 2
Date: 04 Mai
Reviewer: Andreas Geier
Comment:
Kim and coworkers present a retrospective observational cross-sectional cohort
study investigating the association of testosterone and non-alcoholic fatty liver
disease. The work amends as a first report the relationship between testosterone
levels and fatty liver disease.
Also if liver biopsy as a gold standard is lacking as a consequence of the
retrospective study design the provided data are consistent and adequately
presented.
Inclusion of females would be of great interest in further studies, but restriction to
male by the aim of the study is plausible. Differential diagnosis of increased
echogenitiy of liver in ultrasound was negligible by checking medical history in
assumed healthy individuals. Unfortunately there were obviously no possibility of
re-examination of serum samples for free testosterone level and sex-hormone
binding globuline and also CK 18.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Paper reviewed by Dr. Theodor Kudlich and Prof. Andreas Geier
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-12-68 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Mitochondrial Uncouplers Inhibit Hepatic Stellate Cell Activation
Version: 1Date:29 February 2012
Reviewer: Margarete Odenthal
Reviewer's report:
The authors describe the impact of mitochondrial uncoupling on culture-induced
HSC activation and their response to pro-fibrogenic cytokines like TGF-#. This
study is of high interest, because the authors show inhibition of profibrogenic
features by mitochondrial uncoupling. This knowledge might be useful
concerning future therapeutic approaches.
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:
The authors describe the impact of mitochondrial uncoupling on culture-induced
HSC activation and the response to TGF-#. This study is of high interest,
because the authors show inhibition of profibrogenic features by mitochondrial
uncoupling in stellate cells. This knowledge might be useful concerning future
therapeutic approaches. The manuscript is well written and the study includes a
wide range of sophisticated technologies such as stellate cell preparation from
human liver tissues and many others.
There is only a minor objection.
Minor comment:
The reviewer just asks the authors to correct the title of table 1 into:
Table 1: Primer sequences, probes and accession numbers of transcripts, used
for RT PCR quantification.
Further, the reviewer suggests that the authors should show this table as a
supplemental table.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-12-68 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Mitochondrial Uncouplers Inhibit Hepatic Stellate Cell Activation
Version: 1Date:2 March 2012
Reviewer: christian Fingas
Reviewer's report:
Guimarães et al. describe the effect of induced mild mitochondrial uncoupling on
hepatic stellate cell (HSC) activation and fibrogenic activity. Mitochondrial
uncouplers were shown to be capable of inhibiting initial HSC activation, reducing
HSC proliferation as well as suppressing TGF-# signaling suggesting
mitochondrial uncoupling as a new strategy for liver fibrosis therapy Overall, this
is an interesting, well written manuscript with no major weaknesses.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
n/a
Minor Essential Revisions:
1) All data are expressed as mean ± SEM and not mean ± SD as it is claimed in
“Statistical analysis” of the “Materials and Methods” section.
2) The reviewer assumes that FCCP and Valinomycin concentrations of 5 µM
were employed in the experiments Fig.1, 4 and 5 (similarly to Fig. 2). However,
this should be mentioned in the figure legends or “Result” section.
Discretionary Revisions:
1) As a courtesy to the reader, information about product lengths for each primer
pair as well as suppliers of the agents SnPP and TGF-# should be provided.
2) Fig. 2C could be confirmed by immunoblot (similarly to Fig. 6B/C). The effect
of FCCP and Valinomycin demonstrated in Fig. 6B to a certain amount might be
due to unequal loading.
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-12-67 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Comparison of Argon Plasma Coagulation in Management of Upper
Gastrointestinal Angiodysplasia and Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia Hemorrhage
Version: 2Date:19 March 2012
Reviewer: Reginald V. Lord
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is adequately well written and the conclusions are clear. Ethics
approval for the study was obtained. The study includes a large number of
patients with these relatively uncommon disorders. The outcomes for APC
treatment of GAVE are much worse than for angiodysplasia, with 79%
rebleeding, 21% not having hemostasis at discharge, and a 16% mortality rate.
The authors need to emphasize that the results for GAVE are relatively poor and
much worse than for angiodysplasia. The management strategy for patients who
fail APC therapy for GAVE should be mentioned, including the role of surgery if
indicated.
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-12-64 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Hepatitis B vs. Hepatitis C Infection on Viral Hepatitis-Associated
Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Version: 2Date:7 April 2012
Reviewer: Sharon Weber
Reviewer's report:
Interesting and unique study that should be published in BMC Gastroenterology.
the MS could be strengthened by addressing the following points:
1. The authors should outline how many pts did not have tissue dx of HCC. In
these pts, how was dx obtained? was this based solely on imaging findings?
2. Re. differences in AFP production, were these results replicated if the cutoff of
nl vs abnl was used vs cutoff of 100?
3. it would be interesting if the authors correlated longterm outcomes (eg RFS,
OS) with hepatitis type.
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-12-64 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Hepatitis B vs. Hepatitis C Infection on Viral Hepatitis-Associated
Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Version: 2Date:8 April 2012
Reviewer: Mark Bloomston
Reviewer's report:
This paper addresses an interesting issue and is worthy of publication. However,
I think it would be enhanced by addressing the following:
1. The authors suggest that screening for HCC in HBV carriers should start
earlier than age 40 as recommended by AASLD. It would be helpful if they
include data on HBV DNA concentrations to determine the correlation with
cancer risk. The AASLD considers high HBV titers as high risk for HCC
regardless of age.
2. The authors suggest that AFP may not be a useful screening tool for
HCV-associated HCC based upon an arbitrary threshold of 100, acknowledging
that this is well above their lab's upper limit of normal. This should be tempered in
the discussion as trends in AFP may more important in a screening program than
a threshold value.
3. As a reader, I would be interested to know what proportion of patients actually
underwent definitive therapy with curative (i.e. resection, transplant, ablation) or
palliative (i.e. TACE, chemo) intent. Suggesting that curative therapy was not
available to patients outside of Milan criteria is not a fair estimation of who could
(or did) undergo curative therapy since a large single lesion or limited multifocal
disease >3cm without major invasion may still be curable with resection.
4. Table 3 is not helpful as this single data point is already in the text.
5. "...highly statistically significant..." is a misnomer and should not be in the
results section
6. Although I doubt it will change the p value much, fisher's exact test is more
appropriate than chi-square when the # of events is <10 (table 1).
7. Data is introduced in the discussion regarding ethnicity which is not included in
the results.
8. Throughout the paper are multiple misuses of commas and hyphens.
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-12-66 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Oral versus intravenous proton pump inhibitors in preventing re-bleeding
for patients with peptic ulcer bleeding after successful endoscopic therapy
Version: 2Date:1 April 2012
Reviewer: Chen-Wang Chang Chang
Reviewer's report:
Although the study was interesting, the following points needs to be further
clarified:
1. As the author mentioned, the study was not powered to prove equivalence or
non-inferiority of IV and oral PPI. The authors must enrol more case.
2. In the study design, enrolled patients were randomly allocated into two groups
patients, either IV esomeprazole or oral lansoprazole. In my opinion,
esomeprazole and lansoprazole are not the same medicine. To compare the oral
and IV form esomeprazole may be better.
3. Patients with oral PPIs have a shorter hospital stay. I think this finding is not
adequate due to bias in the study design. In my opinion, the difference of cost in
this study is more worth.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-12-66 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Oral versus intravenous proton pump inhibitors in preventing re-bleeding
for patients with peptic ulcer bleeding after successful endoscopic therapy
Version: 2Date:2 April 2012
Reviewer: Nicola de Bortoli
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author
I interestingly red your paper entitled "Oral versus intravenous proton pump
inhibitors in preventing re-bleeding for patients with peptic ulcer bleeding after
successful endoscopic therapy".
It could be considered a well designed and written paper. The results are
interesting and statistic analysis well performed. In your conclusion is well
indicated that these results are interesting but need to be improved in a larger
series of patients.
Future study probably need to be improved with intra-gastric pH study in all
patients (IV versus oral PPI) and probably using a similar PPI (for example
esomeprazole).
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:
none.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-12-66 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Oral versus intravenous proton pump inhibitors in preventing re-bleeding
for patients with peptic ulcer bleeding after successful endoscopic therapy
Version: 2Date:10 April 2012
Reviewer: Tien-Yu Huang
Reviewer's report:
The article submitted by Dr Yen and collaborators revealed that there is no
significant difference in clinical outcomes between oral and intravenous PPI
treatment in patient with high risk peptic ulcer bleeding after endoscopic therapy
under the design of this study. This is an interesting and attracting issue. This
manuscript also provides us new idea and thinking about therapy in these
patients with high-risk peptic ulcer. However, there are some limitations and
points should be addressed in order to answer this important issue.
(Major Compulsory Revisions)
1. According to the mention of authors, the sample size estimation was based on
an expected re-bleeding rate of 30% in the LAN group. However, the re-bleeding
rate was only 4% actually in this study. About sample size, my concern is
whether there is enough statistical power to make a convincing conclusion.
2. The authors concluded that oral proton pump inhibitors have a shorter hospital
stay. However, some enrolled patients were allowed at home in the LAN group.
Whether LAN group contained these patient staying at home on the comparison
of these two groups or not? It could not be pointed out and realized from Table 2.
3. There is a discrepancy in the abstract (about hospital stay in the Results)
4. Why not use oral esomeprazole to compare with intravenous esomeprazole?
(Minor Essential Revisions)
1. P1. There is one missing word within the running title: proton pump-->proton
pump inhibitor
2. P20. reference 21: Gut 2011-->Gut 2011; 60:1444
3. About the figure 1, it needs slight modification. Some redundant mentions
could be removed (e.g. other reasons…).
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 10.1186/1471-230X-12-65 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Drug-Induced Liver Injury due to Varenicline: A Case Report
Version: 1Date:11 February 2012
Reviewer: Iris Liou
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. In Background section, the reference number for the one published case
report should be added to that sentence.
2. The dates for the AST/ALT graph do no look like dates (do not match the
dates on the bilirubin graph).
3. "Transaminitis" is a minomer--probably better described as just "hepatitis"
Otherwise, a good case report with a thorough evaluation and discussion of DILI
in general.
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-12-65 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Drug-Induced Liver Injury due to Varenicline: A Case Report
Version: 1Date:11 April 2012
Reviewer: Nigel Bird
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting paper on an unusual side effect of Varenicline; one that has
only been reported once in the literature. It is well written and describes the
clinical presentation in a comprehensive fashion. My only criticism is that I felt
that the Conclusions section was too long at over 4 pages. A more succinct,
focused set of Conclusions would have improved the impact and ease of
understanding of the message that the paper was trying to convey.
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-12-63 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:A frequent variant in the human bile salt export pump gene ABCB11 is
associated with hepatitis C virus infection, but not liver stiffness in a German
population
Version: 1Date:30 November 2011
Reviewer: Bruno Stieger
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
none
- Minor Essential Revisions
background page 5: In my view the interpretation of ref 16 is not appropriate. Ref.
16. reported on interindividual variability of BSEP (and other canalicular ABC
transporters) protein expression in human liver samples, but not on drug-induced
cholestasis. Drug-induced cholestasis was studied in ref. 21.
results page 10: according to my counting, figure 1 gives 669 HCV patients not
649, as stated on page 10. Please clarify. Figure 1 needs a figure legend.
discussion page 11, end of first para. The p.444A variant of BSEP does not have
a lower pump activity (see ref. 21), but tends to have a lower expression level
resulting in a reduced canalicular bile salt transport capacity. This sentence
should be reworded.
discussion page 11, bottom of the page. Ref 26 does to my understanding not
investigate the role of FXR in the regulation of CYP7A1 and CYP8B1 gene
expression (not function what is implied by the term inhibition) but is a patient
study reporting primarily bile salt levels.
- Discretionary Revisions
background page 5: Pauli-Magnus and coworkers have reported on an
association of the p.444A variant of BSEP with intrahepatic cholestasis of
pregnancy, which was confirmed by the study in 17. The authors might include
this in the background.
results page 10: Cirrhosis was significantly associated with the age of patients.
Could this be related to a difference of the duration of chronic HCV infection, i.e.
older patients have a longer duration of the chronic infection than younger
patients? A comment on this issue, either in the
result or in the discussion section would be very valuable.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-12-61 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Diet in subjects with irritable bowel syndrome: a cross-sectional study in
the general population
Version: 1Date:30 March 2012
Reviewer: Filippo Cremonini
Reviewer's report:
Dr Ligaarden and colleagues present the results of a population-based dietary
survey, reporting on differences in dietary intake between participants whose
symptoms meet Rome II criteria for IBS and the remainder of the responders.
They are also able to report differences according to bowel pattern subtype.
My main concerns are the following
1. The limitations of cross-sectional studies particularly apply when one is trying
to figure out, as in this case, whether consumption of specific foods is associated
to the condition of interest or is the result of such condition (from voluntary
dietary changes). Most of the discussion is appropriately centered on this.
2. It would be helpful if the Authors could formulate a hypothesis and specify
pre-set comparison groups in the aims and methods sections.
3. The response rate is, not uncommonly, low. How did dietary habits compare
with prior surveys of similar or greater response rate which might have been
conducted in the same geographical area?
4. As acknowledged, the questionnaire used is not comprehensive. As I presume
a number of subjects were more closely studied given they provided blood
samples, was the information they had given in questionnaires checked in face to
face interviews to assess for internal consistency? Was there any attempt at
determining calorie intake, eating behavior patterns, actual macronutrients most
consumed?
5. By looking at the confidence intervals, for some of the associations
demonstrated (eg alcohol) these are wider. Could the Authors provide actual
number of subjects categorized in comparison groups in the tables?
Additional concerns
1. Please provide references for symptom severity calculation method and for
food questionnaire validation
2. Please clarify why only omega-3 levels were drawn, and if there were
differences in these between IBS and controls
3. As noted before, please provide raw numbers for people in all comparison
groups shown, so the reader can be aware of what contrasts were based on
smaller group of subjects
4. Are there any data here on specific vegetables consumed which could support
the claims, very reasonable per se, made in the discussion?
5. Any information on the ‘consulter’ status of those meeting Rome II criteria?
6. As the Authors report association of alcohol consumption with an IBS
subgroup, they could briefly clarify how the amount of alcohol consumed was
estimated and provide distribution of different degrees of consumption in their
sample
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-12-61 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Diet in subjects with irritable bowel syndrome: a cross-sectional study in
the general population
Version: 1Date:3 April 2012
Reviewer: Liz Williams
Reviewer's report:
The question is well defined and the sample size means that this is an important
piece of work worthy of publications, but details of the methodolgy need to be
improved and the limitations of the work fully acknowledged.
Major compulsory revisions
1. The methods need to be far better defined. I was unable to access the
questionnaire. Easy access to the documents in English is imperative.
2. The statement ‘Questions relevant to all subjects were used in this study’ is
meaningless. What are the authors referring to here?
3. How was information on BMI, blood pressure and pulse gathered –
self-reported?
4. It is not clear from the methods whether the subjects identified themselves as
having IBS, or whether this was derived from the answers to the questions. If the
former then were there people who believed they had IBS, but didn’t meet the
Rome criteria.
5. Was information collected on the use of medications for IBS?
6. Was the FFQ validated?
7. The limitations of the questionnaire should be stated earlier. It only becomes
apparent at the end of the discussion that this FFQ does not assess the whole
diet – bread, meat, snacks, cakes, biscuits are not considered. What was the
rationale of using a limited questionnaire?
8. The methods state that blood levels of omega 3 fatty acids from fish were
measured. What was the methods used here? Fatty acid composition of the red
blood cell membranes? How do the authors say the fats are derived from fish
rather than fish oil supplements?
Minor essential revisions
1. State in the table how portions of diary products are defined
2. State in the table whether Omega 3 fatty acids, g/day are fish derived or
include supplements.
Discretionary revisions
1. Is information available in supplement use in the IBS subjects compared to
controls?
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'