JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-63 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:A Descriptive Study of Colorectal Function in Adults with Prader-Willi
Syndrome: High Prevalence of Constipation
Version:3Date:22 February 2014
Reviewer: antonino crinò
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript reports a descriptive study of colorectal function, including
constipation, in Prader-Willi syndrome. This argument has been sparsely
investigated in PWS. The paper is interesting and quite well written but some
comments are necessary.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
Data are not completely new and the population included in the study is limited.
In fact the study was performed only on 21 patients with PWS but information
about Rome III criteria are reported only for 17-20 subjects. The authors could
explain better the methodology of stool diary. About clinical examination the
authors report only the amount and consistency of feces in the rectum but not of
haemorrhoids, perianal sensibility, anal sphincter tone, rectal bleeding etc.
As the authors say, the study does not allow any conclusions. The discussion is
too simple and does not explain in depth the gastrointestinal problem found in
PWS. Can you explain better the reason for these bowel dysfunctions?
Minor Essential Revisons:
Abstract: in the results the percentage of feeling of obstructed defecation is 42%
(8/19), while <3 defecations per week is 47% (8/17). When you talk about GITT
delete "days" because it has been repeated twice.
Materials and methods: How many patients were obese?
Results - page 7 = in line 11 the word "hours" should be deleted.
There is any difference between sexes and colorectal dysfunctions in PWS?
Table 1 = please explain the term IBS - write that criteria are referred to Rome III
constipation criteria
Figure 2 = patients with GITT >3 days are 6, while in the text the pts reported
were 5.
Discretionary Revisions:
In the figure 1 and 2 I suggest reporting the median and the range of age of PWS
pts and the control group.
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-14-62 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Growth Inhibition and Apoptosis Induced by 6-fluoro-3-formylchromone in
Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Version:1Date:2 January 2014
Reviewer: yi huang
Reviewer's report:
The authors intended to explore the effects of 6-fluoro-3-formylchromone on
hepatocellular carcinoma cell line SMMC-7721 and some interesting results were
revealed. There are a few comments for the authors:
1 In the abstract, the concentrations of 6-fluoro-3-formylchromone and incubation
time for detecting PCNA, Bax and Bcl-2 should be supplemented.
2 In the introduction, the authors mentioned that “FCC is one of the most
cytotoxic 3-formylchromone derivatives against tumor cell lines such as HSC-2,
HSC-3, HL-60 and human submandibular gland carcinoma cell line”, while their
mechanisms were not involved.
3 We could found that different concentrations of FCC (0, 2, 5, 10, and 20 µg/ml)
were incubated with SMMC-7721. It might be reasonable for the authors to
explain the reason why these concentrations were selected.
4 Though this study revealed that 6-fluoro-3-formylchromone could inhibit the
proliferation of SMMC-7721 cells, the effects of 6-fluoro-3-formylchromone on
hepatocellular carcinoma were not investigated in animal models. Therefore, the
further study design needs to be stated in the discussion.
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-14-62 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Growth Inhibition and Apoptosis Induced by 6-fluoro-3-formylchromone in
Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Version:1Date:2 January 2014
Reviewer: Tyvin A A Rich
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, the effects of 6-fluoro-3-formylchromone on hepatocellular
carcinoma cell line SMMC-7721 were investigated. The results indicated that
6-fluoro-3-formylchromone could significantly inhibit hepatocellular carcinoma cell
growth through cell cycle arrest and inducing apoptosis by suppressing PCNA
expression and modulating the Bax/Bcl-2 ratio. Here are my suggestions for
minor revision:
1 The abstract of this manuscript should be written in more details, such as the
studied concentrations and statitical analysis results.
2 In this study, the expression levels of PCNA, Bax and Bcl-2 in SMMC-7721
cells incubated with 6-fluoro-3-formylchromone for 48 h were measured. The
importance of these three indexes might be better described briefly in the
introduction.
3 Only the chemical structure of 6-fluoro-3-formylchromone was shown in Figure
1A and the characteristics of this substance could be introduced.
4 The cells were treated with 0, 2, 5, 10, and 20 µg/ml
6-fluoro-3-formylchromone. Do 0, 2, 5, 10, and 20 µg/ml mean the final
concentrations of cell solution or the concentrations of 6-fluoro-3-formylchromone
solution? If the latter, please give the volume of the 6-fluoro-3-formylchromone
solution.
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-14-61 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Study of Helicobacter pylori genotype status in cows, sheep, goats and
human beings
Version: 2Date:19 September 2013
Reviewer: ding D shigang
Reviewer's report:
The authors try to examine whether H. pylori is transmitted from animals to
human beings. They do so by DNA sequencing analysis performed on biopsy
specimens of cows, sheep, goats and human beings, and they find that there is
high sequence homology of H. pylori DNA between between sheep and human
beings.
There are some aspects that need to be addressed or discussed by the authors:
Major compulsory revisions:
1- According to the text, the sequence homology of two H. pylori genes is high
between sheep and human. How do the authors establish the association
between this and the conclusion, which suggests that sheep is a reservoir of H.
pylori and is the ancestral host for human?
2- In the text, genes are analyzed in H. pylori positive samples, and there are
results on the genotypes in H. pylori strains. However, there is no description
about how to confirm H. pylori infection, or there are no methods about isolation
and culturing of strains from biopsy tissues. Besides, there is no description
about statistical analysis. The methods seem to be not well described.
3- First paragraph of Results and Discussion: There are histopathological results
of biopsy samples. What do the authors want to illustrate?
Minor essential issues:
1- Limitations of the work are not clearly stated.
2- There are many mistakes in English sequences and spellings. Overall, the
quality of written English is not suitable for publication unless extensively edited.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-61 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Study of Helicobacter pylori genotype status in cows, sheep, goats and
human beings
Version:3Date:13 December 2013
Reviewer: Maria Pina P Dore
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is now accepted.
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-14-61 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Study of Helicobacter pylori genotype status in cows, sheep, goats and
human beings
Version:3Date:16 December 2013
Reviewer: ding D shigang
Reviewer's report:
The authors have revised the manuscript and it now meets my request.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-60 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Severe cholestatic jaundice after a single administration of ajmaline; a case
report and review of the literature.
Version:7Date:14 February 2014
Reviewer: Richa Goyal
Reviewer's report:
This report has many flaws concerning basically with language. Many sentences
require rephrasing.
Introduction: 2nd paragraph: "very scant evidence", please rephrase this Case
presentation: 1st paragraph: "was discharged home", please rephrase this 2nd
paragraph: "not been jaundiced previously", please rephrase this Patient was
kept under review: this was for how long? Please mention the duration
Conclusion: 1st paragraph: It reports CIOS/RUCAM scale but apart from
conclusion section, this has not been reported anywhere. Kindly incorporate its
relevance in the methods or results section as well (where applicable)
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-60 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Severe cholestatic jaundice after a single administration of ajmaline; a case
report and review of the literature.
Version:7Date:26 February 2014
Reviewer: Guruprasad Aithal
Reviewer's report:
- This case report has a number of important features. 1) Cholestatic jaundice
appeared after a single dose 2) History of drug exposure wasn't available untill
patient had liver biopsy which is an important lesson for clinicians 3) it is not in
the list of drugs in liver tox website which highlights its undereporting.
- Authors have cited a broad non-specific review as a reference for HLA
association with DILI; I suggest that reference 11 is omitted. Instead authors
should cite the original articles highlighting HL associations with cholestatic
jaundice- Lucena MI et al., Gastroenterology. 2011l;141(1):338-47., Donaldson
PT et al., J Hepatol. 2010;53(6):1049-53., and Daly AK et al., Nat Genet.
2009;41(7):816-9.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-59 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Celiac disease risk varies between birth cohorts, generating hypotheses
about causality: evidence from 36 years of population-based follow-up
Version:1Date:21 February 2014
Reviewer: Federico Biagi
Reviewer's report:
In this paper Namatovu et al. studied the incidence of celiac disease (CD) in
Swedish children. The authors presented evidence from a 36 year follow up. I
think this is a nice and interesting paper. I have got the following comments:
1. As far as I understand, the authors did not take into account children
diagnosed on the basis of the latest ESPGHAN criteria that, in some cases, do
not consider the biopsy necessary any longer. Since it was shown that the
prevalence of CD varies widely according to the diagnostic criteria used (Ann
Med 2010;42:557-61), this is a strong point in favour of the present paper and
should be highlighted.
2. Do the authors know how many of these celiac children were diagnosed on a
clinical ground (symptoms, familiarity, associated conditions, etc.) and how many
thanks to screening of the general population?
3. Do the authors think that the mass screenings performed all over Europe in
the 90s may have affected the rises and falls in the figures they show? I would
like to see a comment on that.
4. I do not like to read that CD in an “autoimmune enteropathy”. Since there is
another condition defined “autoimmune enteropathy”, this is confusing. Oslo
criteria defines CD an immune-mediate enteropaty.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-59 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Celiac disease risk varies between birth cohorts, generating hypotheses
about causality: evidence from 36 years of population-based follow-up
Version:1Date:22 February 2014
Reviewer: PETER GILLETT
Reviewer's report:
i liked reading your paper- it adds to the international literature and makes
interesting comparison between countries and the obvious similarities and
differences in incidence and prevalence.
Just as a comment - you are to be congratulated in having such a robust national
database - this is something that we would aspire to, i have promoted for the last
10 years in scotland, and the finance and foresight is just totally lacking from the
powers that be !!
1. minor revisions - references 1, 10, 11, 25, 34 all need addressing
(Walker-Smith for example ref 11), the references have some other minor
mistakes- please check for capitalisation and appropriate abbreviation of journal
titles BMC, Scand J Gastroenterol, page numbers etc. Might be worthwhile taking
a few minutes just to make sure all others are ok - i think they are.
2. Discretionary revisions- several papers including ours from 2013 would look at
overall population of children looked at to give an alternative denominator - i
would be very keen to see you do this since you have captured all of the swedish
population cases since 1998 - this might allow you to inform the reader of cases
per 100 000 children's population which would make it easier for comparison with
papers from other groups.
Another thought - do you have any data relating to rate of caesarian section and
breastfeeding data that may allow some extrapolation from your reduced rates of
incidence in the younger groups particularly?? This may be published elsewhere
and if so, i apologise, but even then, it might be useful to include this in this paper
if you are able to.
Many thanks.
Best wishes
Peter Gillett
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
i declare that i have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-59 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Celiac disease risk varies between birth cohorts, generating hypotheses
about causality: evidence from 36 years of population-based follow-up
Version:1Date:5 March 2014
Reviewer: Kaija-Leena Kolho
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting registry-based report on the incidence of pediatric celiac
disease in Sweden during a 36 year time period. The study is well written and
solid, statistical methods are appropriate. Minor comments to improve the clarity:
1. Abstract: Indicate that the average number of new cases is an estimate in the
early year as the coverage of the register was approximately 15% during the
early years and complete from 1998.
2. Clinical impact: see the comment above.
Minor, not for publication
1. Abstract: Methods: correct the font and spelling in the first "the"
2. Background, last paragraph, last references: correct to 6-9
3. References: check all the journal abbreviations as there are several incorrect
abbreviations
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-58 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:High prevalence of Helicobacter pylori Infection in Behcet's Disease
Version:2Date:9 January 2014
Reviewer: Seray Külcü Çakmak
Reviewer's report:
The article describes the prevalance of H. pylori infection identified by serology
and urea breath tests. The authors state that previous studies had some
limitations in their methodologies, but it is stated in other studies that the patients
were not using drugs which might have effected the results. The authors also
state that researchers from Turkey did not
find any relation between deep vein thrombosis and H.pylori infection in
BD, but there are other studies describing whether any specific presentation of
BD is related to H.pylori.
Also the English of the manuscript is poor.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-58 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:High prevalence of Helicobacter pylori Infection in Behcet's Disease
Version:2Date:21 January 2014
Reviewer: Teoman Apan
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? Yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described? Yes (population is small)
3. Are the data sound? Yes
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? Yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data? May be added some more literature
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? Yes
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished? Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? yes
9. Is the writing acceptable? Language is generally acceptable
Needs some language corrections before being published
Accept after minor 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: 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-14-56 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:High Success Rate of Repeat Colonoscopy with Standard Endoscopes in
Patients Referred for Prior Incomplete Colonoscopy
Version: 2Date:7 August 2013
Reviewer: Tom Moreels
Reviewer's report:
The authors provide a retrospective analysis of different ways to deal with
previous incomplete colonoscopy due to difficult anatomy in 100 patients. Repeat
colonoscopy attempts were all performed by a single and experienced
endoscopist in a high volume center. Although there are several limitations to this
study (as depicted in the manuscript), it has specific scientific value.
A. Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. Overall, this study reflects common endoscopic practice to deal with
incomplete conventional colonoscopy in a high volume center. This should be
clearly stated in the Discussion section. The manuscript cannot be considered a
controlled comparison (which the authors do not claim), and therefore
conclusions and recommendations should be considered with substantial
criticism. To clarifiy this aspect of the recommendations, it is adviced to add a
flow-chart depicting what the authors suggest to do in case of incomplete
colonoscopy due to tortuous and redundant colon (and other reasons of
incomplete colonoscopy) in their center. This flow-chart should also include the
type of sedation/anesthesia recommended since this is an important factor
affecting cecal intubation rate (and was only briefly touched upon in the current
manuscript).
2. Since the manuscript focusses upon the difference between tortuous and
redundant colon, these terms should be clarified (especially to non-native english
speaking readers).
3. Standard endoscopes may encompass a large variaty of endoscopes. The
authors should define the standard colonoscope, gastroscope and pediatric
colonoscope (length, diameter, variable stiffness, manufacturer,...) since they
may vary substantially. Nowhere throughout the manuscript the aspect of
variable stiffness endoscopes is described and discussed.
4. Table 3 is obsolete and should be deleted. Only the cecal intubation rates
obtained with the single-balloon enteroscope in tortuous and redundant colon is
of interest.
B. Minor Essential Revisions.
1. There are some typographical errors (mainly missing words) throughout the
manuscript needing correction.
2. Journal names of references 10, 11 and 21 contain the journal's organisation
names which should be deleted.
3. Abbreviations: CRC is colorectal cancer, and not colorectal cancer screening.
C. Discretionary Revisions:
Not applicable.
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-14-56 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:High Success Rate of Repeat Colonoscopy with Standard Endoscopes in
Patients Referred for Prior Incomplete Colonoscopy
Version: 2Date:13 August 2013
Reviewer: Akira Horiuchi
Reviewer's report:
This study is retrospective. A better method would have been to use the same
colonoscopy on 1/2 and a different one on 12 with randomization. Without
randomization and only one endoscopist, the study may just be a measure of
his/her skill and say nothing about what is the best approach. This study does not
seem to have any new findings in incomplete colonoscopy.
Level of interest: An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a
scientific/medical journal
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-56 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:High Success Rate of Repeat Colonoscopy with Standard Endoscopes in
Patients Referred for Prior Incomplete Colonoscopy
Version:3Date:9 January 2014
Reviewer: Akira Horiuchi
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript was improved properly according to reviewers'
suggestions.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-57 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Diagnostic yield of endoscopy in patients with abdominal complaints:
Incremental value of fecal calprotectin on guidelines of appropriateness
Version:1Date:16 November 2013
Reviewer: Antonio Tursi
Reviewer's report:
This interesting study assessed the role of fecal calprotectin (FC) in increasing
the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy using EPAGE criteria. Autors found that the
addition of FC to EPAGE criteria improved the risk reclassification of patients by
endoscopic findings. Thus, diagnostic yield improved to 56.8% and to 70.2% for
EGDscopy and colonoscopy respectively.
Although limited by the retrospective design, this study is very interesting for
clinical setting, because is assesses how to improve the diagnostic yield of
EPAGE criteria. Using FC as supplementary test may be an interesting option to
reach this result. However, three major points need to be addressed.
1. Authors did not find alarm symptoms as effective predictors of significant
findings. This denies the EPAGE criteria, and needs to be adequately discussed.
2. Authors found that the 58µg/g cut-off is the cut-off which has significant
probability to find lesions at EGDscopy. This is a surprising finding, because FC
wasn’t find increased both in chronic gastritis (Montalto M et al. WJG 2010;16:
3406-10) and in celiac disease (Montalto M et al. Scand J Gastroenterol 2007;42:
957-61). These studies should be cited and commented, as well as authors
should provide some explanation of their results.
3. Adding FC increases diagnostic costs. This is particularly true for ELISA tests,
which require higher costs than semi-quantitative tests. Authors should therefore
provide an analysis of increased costs in adding FC to diagnostic work-up, and
comment the results.
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-14-57 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Diagnostic yield of endoscopy in patients with abdominal complaints:
Incremental value of fecal calprotectin on guidelines of appropriateness
Version:1Date:22 December 2013
Reviewer: Shailender Singh
Reviewer's report:
1. Minor essential Revisions: In the abstract the number of EGD is 142. However,
in the manuscript result section EGD was performed in 149 patients.
2. Even though the rate of inappropriate colonoscopies in this study was lower
than others, the overall prevalence of finding significant lesion was also lower
than some of the other published studies. e.g. in colonoscopy overall prevalence
of lesion was 21%, quite low as compared to up to 40% published in the
literature. Authors may want to comment on this in the discussion, and
explanation if possible.
3. On page 14: Using EPAGE criteria in conjunction with fecal calprotectin testing
increased diagnostic yield (56.8% for EGD; 70.2% for colonoscopy) compared to
EPAGE criteria (32.5% and 46.3% respectively,.....
however, earlier in the diagnostic yield it is mentioned that yield for colonoscopy
per EPAGE alone was 23.6% (?? not 46.3% for colonoscopy)
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-14-57 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Diagnostic yield of endoscopy in patients with abdominal complaints:
Incremental value of fecal calprotectin on guidelines of appropriateness
Version:2Date:28 February 2014
Reviewer: Petr Ricanek
Reviewer's report:
I have looked through all attached files, including revised manuscript, cover
letter, and earlier reviews.
The issues raised by the other reviewers and myself have been satisfactory
adressed in the cover letter and revised manuscript.
I recommend acceptance of the revised manuscript without further revision.
As earlier stated, I have no conflicts of interest.
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 competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-57 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Diagnostic yield of endoscopy in patients with abdominal complaints:
Incremental value of fecal calprotectin on guidelines of appropriateness
Version:2Date:2 March 2014
Reviewer: Shailender Singh
Reviewer's report:
No 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-14-57 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Diagnostic yield of endoscopy in patients with abdominal complaints:
Incremental value of fecal calprotectin on guidelines of appropriateness
Version:2Date:6 March 2014
Reviewer: Antonio Tursi
Reviewer's report:
Comments:
Authors successfully replied to all questions raised. Manuscript may be therefore
accepted for publication.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-55 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:DNA Methylation Subgroups and the CpG Island Methylator Phenotype in
Gastric Cancer: A Comprehensive Profiling Approach
Version: 1Date:26 August 2013
Reviewer: Juozas Kupcinskas
Reviewer's report:
A paper submitted by Loh et al. represents an original research, which adds
valuable information on methylation puzzle in gastric cancer. The authors use
novel high throughput technologies, which enabled to assess methylation status
in more than 1400 CpG sites. The methylation array used by the authors enables
to examine multiple methylation sites, rather than looking at single CpG island.
The authors describe two distinct methylation profiles in gastric cancer, which is
of interest for further research. The authors discuss their findings with
appropriate caution, reflecting on potential limitations and biases. The article is
written in comprehensible English. Statistical analysis is appropriate for methods
used within the study. I think that the article has adequate novelty and original
data; therefore, I would suggest accepting the paper for publishing.
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-14-55 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:DNA Methylation Subgroups and the CpG Island Methylator Phenotype in
Gastric Cancer: A Comprehensive Profiling Approach
Version: 1Date:31 August 2013
Reviewer: Rommel Burbano
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is well-written, and has very interesting findings about the CpG
Island Methylator Phenotype (CIMP) in gastric cancer. Even though, the
manuscript has some issues that should be clarified before its acceptance.
MINOR REVISION
Page 3, Line 37: substitute the “in” for “an”;
Page 14, Line 267: H3K4-K3K27: is this right? If so, please explain what are the
consequences of this configuration;
Page 17, Line 330: If only one CpG site was evaluated for most genes, what's
the strength of the study? What are the bases to define which CpG site will be
evaluated in each gene and its importance for the gene expression regulation?
Page 18, Lines 363-364: As the authors did not find genes differentially
methylated between HP+ and HP- patients, explain if this could be a limitation of
the technique. The same question may be applied for other clinicopathological
features, such as TNM and histological type.
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-14-55 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:DNA Methylation Subgroups and the CpG Island Methylator Phenotype in
Gastric Cancer: A Comprehensive Profiling Approach
Version:2Date:8 November 2013
Reviewer: Alfred SL Cheng
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. In the Conclusion of the abstract, the authors stated that 'High-throughput
methylation analysis implicates genes involved in embryonic development and
hedgehog signaling in gastric tumorigenesis.' It is an interesting conclusion yet to
be confirmed. Although the GoldenGate methylation platform is well-established,
potential important biological findings ought to be confirmed by an independent
method. The methylation of 2-3 identified genes in hedgehog signaling is
required to be confirmed.
Minor Essential Revisions
2. If true normal patients are not involved in the analysis, the authors should
change the wording from ‘normal gastric tissue’ to tumor-adjacent gastric tissues.
3. The authors should then state in the Discussion that 'we believe that the
high-quality tissues used in our study allows us to add value to the available
scientific knowledge'.
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-14-55 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:DNA Methylation Subgroups and the CpG Island Methylator Phenotype in
Gastric Cancer: A Comprehensive Profiling Approach
Version:3Date:20 March 2014
Reviewer: Alfred SL Cheng
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed my concern satisfactorily.
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-14-52 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Short term micronutrient-antioxidant supplementation has no impact on
gastric atrophy in Zambian adults: retrospective analysis of a randomised
controlled trial
Version:2Date:2 February 2014
Reviewer: Shigemi Nakajima
Reviewer's report:
This is a study to find beneficial effects of short-term micronutrient-antioxidant
supplementation on gastric atrophy which is one of the premalignant lesions.
Unfortunately they did not find any beneficial effects, however, the study design
is excellent and the interpretation of the results is satisfactory. Therefor I
recommend you to accept this paper for BMC Gastroenterology.
Minor errors
1. In the last sentence: "...adults. Implying..." should be "...adults, implying..."
2. Abbreviatons should be noted when it first appeared.
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 have no conflict of interest with this study.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-52 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Short term micronutrient-antioxidant supplementation has no impact on
gastric atrophy in Zambian adults: retrospective analysis of a randomised
controlled trial
Version:2Date:18 February 2014
Reviewer: Yutaka Yamaji
Reviewer's report:
This study is a sub-analysis of a previous randomized controlled trial and aimed
to investigate the effect of micronutrient-antioxidant supplementation on
prevention of gastric atrophy.
1. The primary outcome of the original randomized trial should be presented.
2. H. pylori is a major factor for gastric atrophy and gastric cancer development.
The eradication of H. pylori is the most promising strategy to prevent them. The
eradication of H. pylori before or during the study should be presented. The
strategy of the micronutrient-antioxidant supplementation should also be
discussed in comparison with H. pylori eradication strategy.
3. The low prevalence of gastric atrophy irrespective of the high prevalence of H.
pylori infection in this study should be discussed. Young age, low prevalence of
Cag-A positive species, or recent eradication might be involved.
4. Please show each pepsinogen I and II level and I/II ratio, before and after the
treatment, if the data are available. The difference in the changes of pepsinogen
levels might be found between treatment and placebo groups. In addition, these
data among younger generation are scarce and interesting.
5. Pepsinogen level is known to be affected by acid suppressors or renal failure,
which should be presented.
6. The odds ratio of “0.28” for age over 40 years in Table 4 seems to be
miswritten. Please check.
7. As the author discussed, the study period seems to be too short to investigate
the effect on gastric atrophy. The last conclusion by the authors could be
modified.
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-14-53 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in elderly patients with metastatic
colorectal cancer: results from the Czech population-based registry
Version:1Date:23 December 2013
Reviewer: Timothy Price
Reviewer's report:
This is a well written and clear paper assessing bevacizumab effect and age. The
registry and management in centralised institutions is an interesting senario. The
equivalent survivals are also of interest. But there are limitations
The major issues are
1. The retrospective nature makes the number difficult and selection bias likely to
be very high. Only 4% of patients are over 75 years and this suggests a highly
selected group. A discussion of what these numbers mean for Czech patients is
important. ie do the authors have a feel for what proportion of patients actually
receive Bev overall, and in particular what proportion of those >75 years. The
conslusions should at least point out that these results almost certainly relate to a
very select elderly group
2. There is a need to understand who enters the data, ie is it clinicians or data
managers. This will help understand the accuracy of some of the data during a
retrospective case review.
3. The survivals are interesting but for a population based registry, an
understanding of what other data is available for Czech survivals for mCRC to
put these in perspective
4. In the discussion there is mention of the majority of patients being <65 years,
but I think the median in general is around this figure, and certainly in population
studies in some countries over 65yrs.
Minor
1. In the discussion Im not sure I agree that this is data is "real world" as it
suggests. The patients are selected and are also treated in a centralised
b=nature, something that is not common in other countries.
2. The results of GI perfs doesnt give the age breakdown in the text.
3. Reference to BRITE as a study is incorrect, it was a prospective registry in my
mind.4. As above, in the conclusion it should be noted that this data suggests
that "for a selected elderly group" Bev appears safe and probably as effective"
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:
Uncompensated member of Roche Advisory Board
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-53 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in elderly patients with metastatic
colorectal cancer: results from the Czech population-based registry
Version:1Date:10 January 2014
Reviewer: Axel Grothey
Reviewer's report:
Major
None
Minor
I would have liked to see a break down of efficacy correlated with the actual
chemotherapy backbone that patients received. The very observation that elderly
patients received less combination chemotherapy as first-line, but still had
comparable PFS and OS is interesting. This should be put in context with the
AVEX data.
Minor
The English used needs some polishing (e.g. instead of patients aged 65-75, it
should read patients age 65-75; Table 1: instead of Hypertension in anamnesis, it
should read history of hypoertension).
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 do not have any competing interests in reviewing this manuscript
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-51 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Screening for adrenal suppression in children with inflammatory bowel
disease discontinuing glucocorticoid therapy
Version:1Date:4 March 2014
Reviewer: Corinne Gower-Rousseau
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors
I reviewed the paper entitled "Screening for adrenal suppression in children with
IBD discontinuing glucorticoid therapy" submitted by SIdoroff et al for publication
in BMC Gastroenterology.
This is an interesting rétrospective study performed through a referral pediatric
center on an important subject.
I have some minor comments.
1. In the abstract introduction the authors must "estimate" in their referral
population (non representative of general population) the frequency of adrenal
insuffisiency and not the prevalence.
2. In the method section does the médian age concern median age at diagnosis
or at the study performed?
3. In the results part, 20% of children have a morning cortisol below the reference
and 10% of children have an undetectable range of morning cortisol. Are these
10% included into the first 20%? The authors must explain.
4. In the Introduction section regarding the worldwide increase of the incidence in
children, the authors could refer the paper published by Chouraki et al in
Alimentary Pharmacol and Therap in 2011 founding a double incidence of CD in
children and adolescents in a French population-based study from 1988 to 2007.
5. Regarding the results of glucocorticoid dependency the authors must refer to
the paper published by Vernier-Massouille in Gastroenterology in 2008.
6. Could the authors give more details on the IBD diagnosis criteria used in this
study?
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:
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-54 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Risk factors of rotavirus diarrhea in hospitalized children in sanglah
hospital, denpasar: a cohort retrospective study
Version:1Date:4 February 2014
Reviewer: Sumadiono -
Reviewer's report:
1. Discretionary Revisions :
The methods would get better when using prospective cohort
2. Minor Essential Revisions
The limitation should be explained in the paper,
The title of the study should be match with the aim on the background
3. Major Compulsary Revisions: -
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:
For the question above :
I declare that I have no competing interest.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-54 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Risk factors of rotavirus diarrhea in hospitalized children in sanglah
hospital, denpasar: a cohort retrospective study
Version:1Date:5 February 2014
Reviewer: David Sahli
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
There is really no question or hypothesis since the study is descriptive in nature.
But the title of the paper corresponds to the study design as well as to the
content. However the study compares two groups, those admitted with rotavirus
infection and those admitted without rotavirus infection, based on the inclusion
criteria. I would question the validity of comparing these groups and then stating
assumptions regarding risk factors for a rotavirus infection in general. Also we do
not know the diversity that may adhere to the “non rota” group, as this group
aren’t characterised sufficiently.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
Discretionary Revisions:
1) I would question the reasons for excluding patients with diarrhea >7 days.
Diarrhea in rotavirus infection often last quite long partly due to a decreased
function of the epithelial lining in the microvilli. Is there any data confirming that
the excluded individuals did not have rotavirus associated gastroenteritis?
3. Are the data sound?
I cannot vouch for data accuracy but the variables are clearly defined, and data
collection seems robust.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
Yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
Yes to some extent
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1) The authors draw general conclusions on rotavirus infection in children based
on the findings made in a highly selected group, i.e hospitalised children.
Although this is to some extent handled in the discussion it should be clearly
stated in the conclusion.
2) The group defined as non-rotavirus diarrhea needs to be better characterised,
especially since comparisons between these groups are made.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Discretionary Revisions:
1) No, very little on this subject is mentioned.
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
Yes
9. Is the writing acceptable?
No, the writing is subpar at best. There are numerous spelling errors as well as
incomplete/erroneous sentences.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-14-54 (2014)

Reviewer's report
Title:Risk factors of rotavirus diarrhea in hospitalized children in sanglah
hospital, denpasar: a cohort retrospective study
Version:1Date:8 February 2014
Reviewer: Ketut Dewi Kumara Wati
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory Revisions
3.1. (p4) Conflicting for definition of inclusion and exclusion . First definition :
patient included in the study have acute diarrhea and those who diarrhea more
than 7 days were excluded. Second definition: in the 3rd para: definition of acute
diarrhea: lasting less than 2 weeks
3.2.(p6).The significant analysis shows male is more …What is the significant
analysis refer to?
3.3.(p12). Table 2. Column 1: variable (n=656), consider not add n after variable
Minor Essentials Revision:
2.1. (p3), Authors should mention what was the software used for Statistical
analysis
2.2. (p15) Figures have no title
2.3 (p12). Tables 2 and after. Column 1: variable (n=656), consider not add n
after variable
Discretional Revision:
1.1 (p1) Authors should give attention on capital letter usage , such as name of
institution on title
1.2 (p3-4). Authors need to give attention on link between sentences, better to
combine two last sentences in the last paragraph
1.3 (p4)first paragraph: need to simplify/shorten paragraph
1.4 (p4 )the grammatical use of English: axilla temperature, better axillary
temperature.
Hand wash behavior , better hand washing behavior
1.5. (p9) SSS. She is the head project , consider : project head or heading the
project ). This might need editing by n house staff.
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