JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-42 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Influence of Ketotifen, Cromolyn Sodium, and Compound 48/80 on the
survival rates after intestinal ischemia reperfusion injury in rats
Version: 1Date:24 March 2008
Reviewer: Saburo Horikawa
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisins
This article is of considerable interest and potential importance in demonstrating
therapeutic strategies for intestinal ischemia and reperfusion injury. This
experiment is well designed and conducted, however, the manuscript is not
adequately arranged.
Major points.
1. In "Results" section, figures (Figure 3, 4, 5 and 6) are not adequately arranged
as seen in completed manuscript. It is difficult to estimate the significance of the
results described by authors in the text.
2. In "Materials and Methods" section, the subsection of "Immunohistochemical
detection of tryptase in intestine" exists. Which section can we find the figure or
interpretation of the result?
Minor points.
3. In page 7, first paragraph.
Concerning to the description of "The surviving rats---- after 75 min intestine
ischemia", sham-operated group does not undergo a 75 min ischemia.
4.In addition, there are several (many) misspellings and wrong use of a term.
For example, Cromolun Sdium (Cromolyn Sodium) et al.
Please carefully check the manuscript.
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-8-42 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Influence of Ketotifen, Cromolyn Sodium, and Compound 48/80 on the
survival rates after intestinal ischemia reperfusion injury in rats
Version: 3Date:16 June 2008
Reviewer: Igor Sukhotnik
Reviewer's report:
1-The answers were satisfactory. The authors note that they have financial
problens to detect the intestinal parameters. However, the measurement of
bowel and mucosal weight, mucosal DNA and protein as well as villus height or
crypt depth does not require a big financial support.
2-This reference is not appropriate. It concerns to changes in intestine during
hemorrhagis shock. Although blod flow in SMA is decreased during hemorrhagic
shock, the mechanisms of intestinal injury in shock is different from IR.
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-8-42 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Influence of Ketotifen, Cromolyn Sodium, and Compound 48/80 on the
survival rates after intestinal ischemia reperfusion injury in rats
Version: 3Date:18 June 2008
Reviewer: Saburo Horikawa
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. This is the inquiry of number 3 in the reviewer’s comments of the previous
revision letter.
Concerning to the description of “The surviving rats in group S recovered more
vigorously and vitally ----- after 75 min intestine ischemia” in the first sentence of
the subsection “Changes in survival rates and states after operation” in the
“Results” section, did sham-operated group undergo a 75 min ischemia?
2. In the revised manuscript, many misspellings and wrong use of a term are still
found. Please carefully check the manuscript.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-42 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Influence of Ketotifen, Cromolyn Sodium, and Compound 48/80 on the
survival rates after intestinal ischemia reperfusion injury in rats
Version: 3Date:29 July 2008
Reviewer: Gervais Tougas
Reviewer's report:
While the study leads to ask a number of questions correctly pointed out by Dr
Sukhotnik, these should be included in subsequent studies. The present report is
quantitative although to some extend also qualitative. The data are a valid
contribution to our understanding of this model and the possible mediators that
can be implicated in the response to reperfusion injury. I would publish with minor
grammatical changes.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-41 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Ultrasonographically Detected Gallbladder Polyps: A Reason for Concern?
A Seven-Year Follow-Up Study
Version: 2Date:23 April 2008
Reviewer: Attila Csendes
Reviewer's report:
Introduction
1.- It is not true that there is no evidence based data with respect to ecographic
follow up. There are at least 6 papers as cited by the authors with enough
evidencies.
2.- What do you mean by “follow up studies in representative population samples
have not been published? Which are presentative population?
Methods
1.- Who performed the ultrasonographic studies? Were they trained radiologists?
2.- You had initially 34 subjects with polyps. From them 3 were operated and
therefore, only 22 of 31 patients (71%) could be followed. This is a small number
of patients compared to other reports.
Results
1.- It is interesting to note that only 1 subject had both gallstones and polyps,
while 188 had gallstones and 34 polyps alone.
2.- Figure 1 is very difficult to understand. You should done a better figure.
3.- Figure 2 should be eliminated because it is too large and is incorporated in
the text.
a.- What do you mean by “ no measurement of polyps in 1996 = 3 cases.
b.- What do you mean by “cholecystitis”?
c.- What do you mean by “polyps mainly detected? They were not seen on 1996?
4.- How do you explain the appearance of 5 cases with gallstones? What
happened with the polyps?
5.- Which were the histopathological findings of the gallbladder mucosa in the
operated patients?
Discussion
1.- Why do you insist in the “representative population”? All studies, including
yours, have followed only the patients with polyps and not the entire group. Did
you perform an ecographic follow up of the initial 2415 subjects?
2.- You are repeating results in discussion (page 1e) Eliminate it.
References
1.- Last pages are missing in references 4, 5, 7.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-41 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Ultrasonographically Detected Gallbladder Polyps: A Reason for Concern?
A Seven-Year Follow-Up Study
Version: 2Date:18 June 2008
Reviewer: Masayuki Kitano
Reviewer's report:
Major point:
This study reported that little change was observed in size of gallbladder polyps
by fixed follow-up (30 and 84 months) in 34 subjects. It is a pity that gallbladder
polyps were found only in 34 subjects although a large number of subjects (2415)
underwent ultrasonography. In addition, authors have not confirmed any
neoplastic lesions. In order to decide the appropriate follow-up interval, more
patients with polyps including neoplastic lesions which increase in size during
follow-up should be needed. Otherwise, it would be more interesting how many
polyps in this study grow and are found to be neoplasms after following
observation of 10 years or later.
Minor points
1. Authors should mention which diameter among three axes was employed for
the size in the section of Results. Maximum or mean diameter ? (Page 4, Line
13)
2. In the section of Material, description of focus point and MI setting is
recommended.
3. Growth of polyps may be different between pedunculate or broad based ones.
How many polyps were broad based ?
4. In the section of Results, misspelling of the size “10cm” should be corrected
for “10mm” (Page 10 Line 17).
5. In the section of Conclusion, authors mentioned “This study adds evidence
that the currently recommended follow-up intervals of 6 to 12 months ………..in
diameter appear adequate.” However, their follow-up intervals were 3-4 years.
From their results, adequate follow-up intervals cannot be determined.
6. I also recommend authors to describe how many subjects with gallbladder
neoplasms were found among 2415 subjects and their size and ultrasound
feature.
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-8-41 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Ultrasonographically Detected Gallbladder Polyps: A Reason for Concern?
A Seven-Year Follow-Up Study
Version: 3Date:4 August 2008
Reviewer: Attila Csendes
Reviewer's report:
I have received the corrected paper entitled "Ultrasonographically Detected
Gallbladder Polyps:A Reason for Concern? A Seven-Year Follow-Up Study",
which is now suitable for publication. However, what is unforgiven is the fact that
the authors could not get the histological results of the resected gallbladder in
other institutions.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-41 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Ultrasonographically Detected Gallbladder Polyps: A Reason for Concern?
A Seven-Year Follow-Up Study
Version: 3Date:6 August 2008
Reviewer: Masayuki Kitano
Reviewer's report:
Although I think this report includes limited number of new evidences, I agree
that authors cannot further add any mor numbers of patients.
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-8-40 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Resveratrol inhibits nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in rats.
Version: 2Date:1 April 2008
Reviewer: Saul Villa-trevi?o
Reviewer's report:
An interesting manuscript is presented related to the effect of resveratrol on
non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Authors show a clear effect of
resveratrol upon lipid content of liver sections, a clear effect on TNF alpha and
malondialdehide liver level. Additionally they present negative results of
translocation of intestinal bacteria and and the behaviour of transaminases and
glucose.
Major compulsory revisions
It is important to extend discussion on the effect of oxidative stress on the
activation of NFkB and further induction of TNFalpha. (Yinn et al 1999)(kono et
al,2000) (Zhao et al 2008) and conecct these arguments with the known effect of
resveratrol on oxidative stress.
It must be clearly stated in the discussion what is the hypothesis of the
mechanism by which esveratrol decreases liver steatosis in rats.
It should be addressed in the discussion if resveratrol decreases or prevents liver
steatosis.
Minor essential revisions
.Abstract first paragraph line 4, “if resveratrol decrease”; line 5, “in an decrease”;
line 6 “production” shoul be deleted.
Experimental procedures.
Page 4, 3° paragraph “Biopsies”. Is it correct?
Histological evaluation
Page 5, “In the control”,” In” should be deleted.
Discussion
Page 6, line 6, “perosidation and osidation” should be corrected
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-8-40 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Resveratrol inhibits nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in rats.
Version: 3Date:20 May 2008
Reviewer: Ralf Weiskirchen
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
The revised version of Bujanda and co-workers addresses most of the points that
I have raised in my initial review. However, the most critical reason why I have
recommended rejection of the manuscript was the failure to demonstrate that the
resveratrol efficiency in reducing NAFLD severity is a direct consequence of
TNF-alpha inhibition. The link was simply postulated but not demonstrated. In the
revised version, the authors have made no experimental attempt to address this
critical issue. In my view it is not sufficient to argue that similar studies in
“prestigious journals” did not include the suggested controls (TNF-alpha blocking
agents or TNF-alpha). Therefore, the major conclusion drawn supposing that the
beneficial effects of resveratrol are a consequence of TNF-alpha inhibition is still
a speculation.
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-8-39 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Circulatory effects of albumin infusion and assessment of fluid
responsiveness of cardiac index by transpulmonary thermodilution in patients
with advanced cirrhosis of the liver and impaired renal function. A prospective
interventional study.
Version: 1
Date:24 February 2008
Reviewer: Jochen Renner
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-39 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Hemodynamic effects of plasma-expansion with hyperoncotic albumin in
cirrhotic patients with renal failure. A prospective interventional study.
Version: 2Date:24 July 2008
Reviewer: Jochen Renner
Reviewer's report:
I have read the previous comments of the other reviewer and the author`s
response. To me it seems that most of the concerns have been addressed
appropriately. Points of major criticism, for example, the concerns about the
interpretation that SVRI as an indicator of afterload was the best predictor of fluid
responsivenesss have been deleted from the discussion section.
It would be helpful if a native speaker could be involved in the editng of the
manuscript. I quite believe that this would be in agreement with the other author.
In addition I have only minor concerns.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-37 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Validation of a survey methodology for gastroesophageal reflux disease in
China
Version: 2Date:15 June 2008
Reviewer: Vic Velanovich
Reviewer's report:
Overall, this is a very well done study and the authors should be congradulated.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. p. 8, "Questionnaires" section. The authors need to state a rationale for why
these instruments were chosen for study. Why other GERD-related instruments
were excluded. It seems that these instruments assess slightly different aspects
of how GERD affects quality of life, therefore, they may not be interchangable. I
think that a table or figure showing the complete questionnaires so that the
reader can see what is being asked of the patient would be helpful.
2. p. 10, last two sentences. How was it determine that the subjects considered
the questions "relevant and clear." The authors discuss in a few places in the
manuscript the cultural nuances of Chinese patients related symptoms to GERD.
Was a qualitative analysis done? How much of the original language of the
instruments had to be modified to order to gain meaning in Mandarin? This is no
trivial issue as your factor analysis of the QOLRAD showed poor construct
validity and translation issues may play a role in this.
3. p. 19. I think that the authors have done a great service to researchers wanting
to study GERD in Madarin-speaking patients, therefore, how are the authors
going to make available there translations of these instruments? Perhaps these
translations should be published in this paper.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. p. 11, "Statistical Analysis" section. What is the rationale "50%" of item
completion used as cutoff to include or exclude demension scores from analysis?
Morevoer, in the results section, these is no mention of the frequency of missing
items, and if this varied by region.
2. p. 16, 1st full para. Why does not the factor analysis of the QOLRAD deserve
its own table?
3. p. 16, "Convergent validity" section. In linear regression analysis, correlations
are not "statistically significant." What is statistically significant is that the slope of
the regression line is different from 0. A minor point, but it speaks to an
understanding of the data analysis used.
Discretionary Revisions
1. p. 17, last sentence of 1st incomplete para. The fact that facilitators considered
some items difficult to explain speaks to a problem of practicality. That is, not
matter how good an instruments validity and reliability is, if it is impractical to
administer, then it will not be used by other researchers. Can the authors
comment?
2. p. 17, last sentence of 1st full paragraph. Are the authors suggesting or
recommending that trained facilitators always be used when trying to administer
these instruments to Mandarin-speaking patients?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, 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-8-37 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Validation of a survey methodology for gastroesophageal reflux disease in
China
Version: 2Date:17 June 2008
Reviewer: Fabio Pace
Reviewer's report:
The study is extremely well conducted.
I have no criticism or suggestion at all.
In my opinion, the paper is suitaboe for publication
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'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-37 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Validation of a survey methodology for gastroesophageal reflux disease in
China
Version: 2Date:25 June 2008
Reviewer: Glyn Jamieson
Reviewer's report:
Is Table 6 really necessary?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-37 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Validation of a survey methodology for gastroesophageal reflux disease in
China
Version: 3Date:14 July 2008
Reviewer: Vic Velanovich
Reviewer's report:
No revisions necessary.
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-8-38 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Erythromycin Lacks Colon Prokinetic Effect in Children with Functional
Gastrointestinal Disorders, A Retrospective Study
Version: 2Date:28 January 2008
Reviewer: Hiroyuki Kuwano
Reviewer's report:
This original manuscript demonstrated the study showing the effect of
erythromycin on the colon motility of children with chronic constipation evaluated
by colon and antroduodenal manometries. This study is interesting, because
there are only a few reports for the effect of erythromycin on the colon motility of
children with chronic constitution. However, there are some points to be clarified
in this study to publish the journal.
Major comments
1. There was no Figure in this manuscript. Typical results of manotetric recording
for colonic examinations, including the effects of erythromycin, bisacodyl, and
meal (gastrocolic response) on the recording, should be demonstrated.
2. The results, including the effect of erythromycin on AUC, the patterns of
gastrocolic response, and an incidence of HAPC before and after the bisacodyl
administration, should be summarized in Tables.
3. The authors showed that there was no HAPC at the time following the meal. Is
this finding to be an abnormal? Is this finding a feature of patients with functional
constipation and/or fecal incontinence? There have been some reports that study
the colon manometry of pediatric patients with chronic constipation. The author
could refer the manometric results of these reports, and discuss or suggest the
feature of colonic motility in the patients with chronic constipation.
4. The authors should discuss the mechanism of down regulation of erythromycin
on the colonic motility. It would be thought that erythromycin should affect the
colonic motility because of significant down regulation after the administration of
erythromycin. Please discuss the mechanism of this phenomenon.
Minor comments
1. The patientsâ## profile was included in Results. This information would be
suitable to be described in Materials and Methods.
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory 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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-38 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Erythromycin Lacks Colon Prokinetic Effect in Children with Functional
Gastrointestinal Disorders, A Retrospective Study
Version: 2Date:6 February 2008
Reviewer: Menachem Hanani
Reviewer's report:
General
The potential novelty of this work is in showing that erythromycin has no effect on
colonic motility in constipated children. This result may be important as it
indicates that that erythromycin and related substances have no therapeutic
potential as prokinetic drugs in the colon. However, there are several issues in
the analysis and discussion that need to be addressed.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Colonic mechanical activity was assessed by measuring the area under the
curve (AUC), which was calculated by assuming that the response is triangular.
However, there is no evidence that this is so. The authors should present several
original recordings to confirm this point. I suggest that they measure the actual
AUC.
2. The authors concluded that erythromycin has no prokinetic effects on the
colon. They do not address the question whether or not motilin receptors are
present in this tissue, although from their discussion it might appear that they
expect that this is the case. They should look in the literature for evidence for
motilin receptors in the human colon.
A more serious point is the lack of a control group, i.e. children with no
constipation. It might be argued that the abnormal motility in the patients is due to
reduced expression of motilin receptors, or some other defect in the function of
these receptors.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Ref. 4 is not on motilin
2. The units for the AUC should be mmHgâ#¢s not mmHg/s.
3. P. 4, patients with normal colonic motility were selected for this study. But
these patients suffered from chronic constipation. Please explain
3. The authors ignore published work that indicated that erythromycin has no
prokinetic influence on humans colon; for example: Jameson JS et al., Oral or
intravenous erythromycin has no effect on human distal colonic motility. Aliment
Pharmacol Ther.;6:589-595, 1992.
In another study on the human colon in vitro, erythromycin had an inhibitory
action, see, Nissan A et al., Direct inhibitory effect of erythromycin on human
alimentary tract smooth muscle. Am. J. Surgery 183:413-418, 2002.
4. Style corrections:
P. 2, ".. patients with normal (what?).."
P. 3, "observational studies" (?)
P. 3, "Dataâ#¦ is".
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-38 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Erythromycin Lacks Colon Prokinetic Effect in Children with Functional
Gastrointestinal Disorders, A Retrospective Study
Version: 4Date:13 May 2008
Reviewer: Hiroyuki Kuwano
Reviewer's report:
1. The authors added the sentence in the discussion that “it is possible that the
colon motilin receptors may have reduced affinity for erythromycin compared to
the antral nerves or the expression of motilin receptor may be reduced in the
colon”. Then, the authors concluded that Erythoromycin lacks colon prokinetic
effect in children with chronic constipation evaluated by colon manometry. I
agree with authors’ discussions and conclusion.
However, the authors described that the AUC following erythromycin was
significantly less compared to the fasting phase of the study. Therefore, the
mechanism of this interesting phenomenon would better to be discussed, too.
2. The AUC unit was described in “mmHg”. The AUC revealed the area under the
curve. Is there another AUC unit except “mmHg”?
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-8-38 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Erythromycin Lacks Colon Prokinetic Effect in Children with Functional
Gastrointestinal Disorders, A Retrospective Study
Version: 4Date:18 July 2008
Reviewer: Philippe Ducrotte
Reviewer's report:
We have few data about the colonic motor effects of erythromycin. Therefore this
paper is interesting even if it is a retropective study performed in 10 children with
constipation and if it tested a single dose of the drug.
I consider that this paper is suitable to be published in BMC. However, the
presentation of the paper has to be be improved and some methodological
details have to be given.
- was the end of the manometric probe located in the caecum in every child ?
- were the children anaesthetized for the colonoscopy. If the answer if yes, how
long was the interval of time between colonoscopy and manometric recording ?
Indeed, the AUC seems very low.
- Is the definition of the gastrocolonic response an "home-made" definition ?
- what is a meal appropriate for the age ?
- the tracings were only analyzed quantitatively. Did erythromycin induce specific
motor patterns (custers of contractions...)
- the last paragraph of the discussion is useless.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-36 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Correlations of CD4 counts, enteric protozoan infestation and seasonal
variations in AIDS patients - An experience of a tertiary care hospital in Varanasi
(India)
Version: 1Date:4 March 2008
Reviewer: Klaus Mönkemüller
Reviewer's report:
Tuli et al report on the etiology of acute and chronic diarrhea in a cohort of
patients from North India. The study is well conducted, well written and
informative.
Although there are similar studies from other parts of the world already
published, it is important to additionally publish data such as Tuli’s et al. to better
comprehend the complications due to the AIDS pandemic.
Major comments:
Methods: were these consecutive patients? Please clarify.
What were the inclusion and exclusion criteria?
Positive aspect of the study: stool was collected from family members. I would
expand on this in the discussion.
36% of patients on ART showed immune restitution. How was immune restitution
defined. How many patients were on ART? How many were on HAART?
Results:
In how many patients were antiretroviral potential culprits for the diarrhea.
Discussion:
Could it be that because you did not perform colonoscopy that you did not find
Cytomegalovirus? I would add this important aspect in the discussion. I would
also add the study of Blanshard et al showing that the more stool samples you
collect and the more invasive you look (i.e. EGD and colonoscopy) the more you
find. Certainly, discussing this will not decrease your chances of publishing your
study, but it needs to be clear that only stool sampling is NOT enough to
completely solve the question of the etiology of diarrhea.
Could you discuss on why Ascaris was less common in HIV positive patients?
It appears that CD4 counts did not correlate with the occurrence of Cyclsopora
cayetanensis. Please comment.
Minor comments:
Abstract: Background confusing, pelase clarify (simplify what your are trying to
say)
Background:
What do you mean by Westrn U.P.?
Methods:
HIV positive was defined as HIV1 and HIV2 positivity. Do you mean or (instead of
and)
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
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-8-36 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Correlation between CD4 counts of HIV patients and enteric protozoan in
different seasons - An experience of a tertiary care hospital in Varanasi (India).
Version: 2Date:7 May 2008
Reviewer: Klaus Mönkemüller
Reviewer's report:
Paper has improved.
I recommend its acceptance.
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-8-36 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Correlation between CD4 counts of HIV patients and enteric protozoan in
different seasons - An experience of a tertiary care hospital in Varanasi (India).
Version: 2Date:2 June 2008
Reviewer: Nancy Malla
Reviewer's report:
Comments on the revised manuscript entitled “Correlation of CD4 counts, enteric
protozoan infestation and seasonal variations in AIDS patients- An experience of
a tertiary care hospital in Varanasi (India).
Revised manuscript is suitable for publication in BMC infectious diseases.
However, following points have not been addressed clearly and need
clarification/change.
1. Page 4- Paragraph I: The authors have mentioned that “analysis of seasonal
variation in the occurrence of intestinal protozoan infections was made to help
the clinician in giving an accurate diagnosis to avoid empirical treatment.”
It is not clear that how analysis of seasonal variation will help the clinicians to
formulate treatment strategy. Does authors mean that there is no need of
laboratory diagnosis/confirmation for opportunistic intestinal parasitic infections?
Analysis of seasonal variation has epidemiological significance for prevention
and control of these infections, rather than guiding clinicians in giving an accurate
diagnosis to avoid empirical treatment.
Therefore, it is desired that the sentence should be rewritten.
2. The high percentage of ‘Microsporidium’ observed in this study may be
because only calcoflour while staining is used. There may be false positivite
results.. This point should be included in the discussion, otherwise it may give
false impression.
3. Page 9- Last three lines-
a) Siddhartha et al- Reference is not listed in the Reference list.
b) When compared to other studies of Southern India (References not quoted).
4. Page 11-
Conclusions: should be redrawn.
Line 2: The ‘Seasonal Variation’ should be deleted.
5. There are few typographical errors in the manuscript
e.g. Page 12- Reference 4- Line 2- Isochoric should be Isospora.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-35 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Immunohistochemical testing for Helicobacter Pylori Existence in
neoplasms of the colon
Version: 1Date:13 February 2008
Reviewer: Peter Malfertheiner
Reviewer's report:
The authors investigated the prevalence of H. pylori in polyps that have been
removed during lower GI endoscopy. The manuscript is dealing with a very
interesting topic, since the definite role of H. pylori infection in the development of
lower GI malignancies is still under discussion. Data from serological studies is
pointing towards an indirect influence, whereas data demonstrating a direct
presence of H. pylori in the neoplastic tissue is poor. The approach of
immunohistochemical staining of the bacteria is helpful to assess a systematic
risk profile.
There are some points concerning the design of the study and presentation of
the data that should be considered before publishing this article.
- In the conclusion it says â##existing data is not adequate to substantiate an
associationâ## and â##large number of patients are neededâ##. If the data is
not sufficient, why is it presented here? Why are not more patients included to
reach a study population for a proper statistical analysis? There is no clear
message that should be delivered by this article.
- The abstract is extremely detailed (esp. the results part). It should be focused
on the major points.
- Materials and Methods:
o Why is the sigmoid and the rectum excluded? The study protocol is not
mentioned appropriately (especially inclusion and exclusion criteria are missing).
o The protocol for IHC should be presented either in more detail, or references
should be cited for the complete protocol.
- Results:
o It is quite difficult to understand the staining patterns in the way they are
presented.
o The staining patterns stratified by the different types of polyps are presented
twice: in the text and by the table 1. The detailed description in the text is not
necessary.
o Table 1 is confusing. H. pylori presence should be presented above the
staining patterns. Then, absolute numbers of H. pylori positive polyps could be
left out since it is represented twice in the table.
- Discussion:
o In the first part, the structure is confusing. For the reader, there is no clear
message.
o The passage concerning the â##gastrin-linkâ## between gastral H.
pylori-infection and its effects on the regulation of GI-hormones and growth
factors should be shortened. Most of the presented studies are not relevant for
the data that is substance of the article (â##neoplasms of the colonâ##, not of
the stomach).
o Several times â##reportsâ## are mentioned without citing a reference.
o A better differentiation between studies evaluating H. pylori-presence by
serology and those with direct proof of the bacteria in colonic neoplastic tissue
would be helpful.
o The discussion of the presented results is scattered in between the lines. A
clear critical interpretation of the data is missing.
We suggest to accept this article for publishing, if the points above are properly
revised, especially the discussion need to be better structured.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-35 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Immunohistochemical testing for Helicobacter Pylori Existence in
neoplasms of the colon
Version: 1Date:29 February 2008
Reviewer: Tamara Vorobjova
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions:
1.In Material and Methods would be correct to present the dilution of used
primary antibodies, as well as the time and temperature of incubation.
2.On the Fig. 3 is shown the dark yellow/light brown staining in a spiral form
which was evaluated as positive. Was the negative control section negative for
this type of staining?
What next?: Accept after discretionary 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-8-35 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Immunohistochemical testing for Helicobacter Pylori Existence in
neoplasms of the colon
Version: 2Date:17 June 2008
Reviewer: Peter Malfertheiner
Reviewer's report:
Thank You for submitting a revised version of the manuscript mentioned above.
There are some minor comments that should be respected before publication of
the article can be considered.
Abstract / Materials and Methods: The changes recommended are adequately
addressed.
Results:
1) Concerning table 1, the changes recommended have been adequately
realized.
2) First paragraph, line two: Why do you still maintain into the “ascending” and
“descending” colon, although the groups mentioned in the methods part are
subdivided according to “right” and “left colon”? Please change.
Discussion:
1) From paragraph 2 on the abbreviation CC (“Colonic Cancer”?) is used without
being introduced. In the text the differentiation between CC and CRN is not
clearly defined.
2) Paragraph 3, line 9: What do You mean by “serologic CRNs”?
3) Paragraph 4: The part about remission of MALT lymphoma in patients with
Cap polyposis is not relevant for the study presented.
4) Paragraph 5, line 6: The study of Grahn et al would be cited more
appropriately in paragraph 3, where the association of H. pylori-positivity and size
or localization of the polyps is discussed.
5) Paragraph 6, 8: “Numerous studies”, please quote at least one (Review,
Meta-Analysis).
6) Paragraph 6, 9: “…the absence of H. pylori…”: You stated H. pylori-positivity
in villous adenomata! You should at least change this into “ the absence of H.
pylori ….as reported by several authors…” or include this message at a different
place in the article.
7) Paragraph 7+8: Discussion of methodical aspects should not be the final
paragraph of the discussion. The detailed repetition of results is not necessary in
this section.
8) Structure:
a. The paragraph about the role of gastrin might not be optimal as an opener for
the discussion since no gastrin-related parameters have been evaluated.
9) Spelling mistakes:
a. Paragraph 2, line 1: must be “H. pylori”
b. Paragraph 3, line 11: must be “A study of”
c. Paragraph 13, line 13: must be “according”
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 have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-34 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Five mucosal transcripts of interest in ulcerative colitis identified by
quantitative real-time PCR: a prospective study
Version: 1Date:29 September 2007
Reviewer: Charlie Lees
Reviewer's report:
General
This study explores expression profiles of 5 genes previously identified by this
group to be dysregulated in UC on microarray analysis. The present analysis is
limited to a detailed analysis of mRNA expression profiling using real-time
RT-PCR.
The study lacks novelty as such, but has been performed in a reasonable
number of biopsies with appropriate attention being placed on sample location
and disease activity. It is quite poorly written with multiple spelling and
grammatical errors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
Methods - statistical analysis: it would be more appropriate to apply
non-parametric analysis to these data as with these sample numbers they are
unlikely to be normally distributed
Results - there is too much subanalysis of this limited dataset and this should be
reduced. I would suggest deleting figure 6
Discussion - too long; needs to be much more concise and focused on only those
observations directly relevant to this study.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
Introduction - second para, first sentance 'The pathogenesis and pathophysiology
in UC are fragmentary understood' needs rewording.
Methods - para 1: the montreal classification is wrongly used here. E2 is left
sided colitis distal to the splenic flexure and E3 is extensive colitis proximal to the
splenic flexure (but not pancolitis). Furthermore, the montreal classification
defines disease extent as the maximal extent during the course of disease rather
than at any fixed timepoint to allow for the fact that disease will become more or
less extensive in ~20% of patients.
The Montreal classification is wrongly referenced; the authors should refer to the
original ms in the canadian journal of gastro suppl 2005 for the working party
report from the World Congress 2005.
Prednislon should be changed to prednisolone at all relevant entries; similarly
azathioprin needs changing to azathioprine
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that i have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-34 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Five mucosal transcripts of interest in ulcerative colitis identified by
quantitative real-time PCR: a prospective study
Version: 2Date:16 November 2007
Reviewer: alexandra zahn
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
In my opinion, the major problem of this study persists after revision. No
additional experiments on protein level were performed. Thus, the impact of the
authors findings on the pathophysiology of UC stays unclear. This is reflected in
a very speculative discussion. I cannot recommend the manuscript for
publication.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Reject because too small an advance to publish
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-8-34 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Five mucosal transcripts of interest in ulcerative colitis identified by
quantitative real-time PCR: a prospective study
Version: 2Date:25 November 2007
Reviewer: Klaus Fellermann
Reviewer's report:
General
The revised manuscript has improved. Most of the suggestions have been
incorporated though an analysis on Crohn´s disease is still lacking. However, this
is not a major drawback.
Minor comments
1. misspellings
4th line results section: evaluate
2nd line ethics section: entering the study
2. What were the expression levels in S0 (remission)? Did they differ from
controls? I could not identify the statement in the text and it should be added.
3. Ref. 18 updated
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-34 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Five mucosal transcripts of interest in ulcerative colitis identified by
quantitative real-time PCR: a prospective study
Version: 2Date:11 December 2007
Reviewer: Charlie Lees
Reviewer's report:
The authors have adequately responded to all the comments made in the original
review and i have no further comments to add.
What next?: Accept without revision
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
i declare that i have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-28 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Unexplained Chest/Epigastric Pain in Patients with Normal Endoscopy as a
Predictor for Ischemic Heart Disease and Mortality: A Danish 10-Year Cohort
Study
Version: 3Date:17 November 2007
Reviewer: Noel Bairey Merz
Reviewer's report:
General
This manuscript addresses a topic of relevance that is increasingly being
recognized clinically (challenges in symptom recognition) using a novel approach
(prognosis following normal upper GI endoscopy). The strengths are the long
term followup with relatively complete data. The weaknesses are aspects of data
inclusion, questions regarding physician blinding, and questions about data
analyses.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
1. The nonspecific symptom patients were excluded from analyses. What are the
results if they are included? Were the symptom type inclusion fit to demonstrate
findings, and if so, this should be expressed as a limitation, and/or the model
should be tested in a second cohort.
2. Were the physician's involved in the interpretation of the cases and symptoms
blinded to the study analyses and results?
3. Clarify what aspects of arteriosclerosis processes that were separate from the
IHD covered.
4. Symptom recognition may be different between women and men. It would be
of interest to analyze the results by sex.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.