JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-34 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Portal Vein Thrombosis; Risk factors, Clinical presentation and Treatment. Title: 
 1  12 March 2007 Version: Date: 
 Stephen Riordan Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This report concerning risk factors, clinical presentation and treatment of portal vein thrombosis based on a 
retrospective case series is timely in view of the increasing recognition of this disorder and current 
uncertainty as to its most appropriate management, particularly with regard to the role for anticoagulation. In 
keeping with other reports, the analysis points to several contributing factors in a substantial proportion of 
cases. Of major therapeutic relevance, the report adds support to the notion that anticoagulant therapy 
should be strongly considered, even in the setting of complicating varices. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) 
The data concerning risk factors for portal vein thrombosis at the top of page 8 are confusing and should be 
clarfied. Similarly, Tables 2, 3 and 4 should be re-labelled so as to clarify exactly what groups the sample 
sizes of 67 and 48 actually refer. 
The authors refer to statistical analyses being performed but no statistical values are listed in the text - this 
should be clarified. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-34 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Portal Vein Thrombosis; Risk factors, Clinical presentation and Treatment. Title: 
 2  5 May 2007 Version: Date: 
 lucio amitrano Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
In the abstract and the discussion the retrospective nature of the study has to be declared. 
The authors have to provide interpretation for the high prevalence of ascites in their non cirrhotic patients 
with portal vein thrombosis and its clinical significance 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
Methodology of thrombophilic screening is not given. Von Willebrand factor is not a thrombophlic risk factor. 
The screening is incomplete (i.e. mutation 20210 of prothrombin has not been investigated). These 
limitations have to appear in the text. 
Check spelling errors in table 1 
In my opinion the section laboratory findings does not add more and should be deleted as well as table III 
Discussion : 
Delete from line 2 to line 9 Delete the sentence on sigmoidoscopic examination 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-34 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Portal Vein Thrombosis; Risk factors, Clinical presentation and Treatment. Title: 
 2  7 May 2007 Version: Date: 
 Angelo Andriulli Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) I found the Results would need a thorought revision to include the following 
changes: 
- 1st and 2nd paragraphs: The Authors state that the "mean follow up time from admission.... 
As the study was retrospective in nature, a more sound statement would be: Meal time elapsed from 
admission.... 
- The paragraph on Risk factors does not appear to deliver its message properly. Indeed,the study reports 
data on 67 patients. However, by adding 43 to 28 cases the total is 71! I do not understand the sentence: analyses on patients without cancer or cirrhosis differed with 27 cases... and 24 cases: here again the total 
number is 51, while it has been said that these patients totalled 48 in numbers. 
- 3rd paragraph: as only 6 patients had been evaluated by MRI, it seems useless to report data on sensitivity of MRI. - By adding 54%, to 42% and 31% the total is higher than 100%: please, clarify 
-page 8, 3rd paragraph, line 4: insert were after cirrhosis 
- page 9: renal insufficiency - page 9: Mortality appears primarily to depend...... but is in most other cases fairly good. How can mortality be fairly good? Please, chech he English 
page 10: "of 10 patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding in our study 40 percentages had"... here again I 
would suggest to rewrite the sentence 
Table 1: I do not understand what "sectio/cholecystit" stands for. Also Ideopathic is mispleed 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Reject because too small an advance to publish What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-32 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Grey scale enhancement by a new self-made contrast agent in early cirrhotic stage of rabbit liver Title: 
 1  17 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Jie Li Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-32 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Grey scale enhancement by a new self-made contrast agent in early cirrhotic stage of rabbit liver Title: 
 1  28 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Adrian Lim Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The introduction and also discussion needs to be revised and include many other papers on transit itmes 
particularly with relation to a fibrosis model in humans. The authors need to complete a more thorough literature search. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
1. There is a lack of controls and any such data would enhance this study 
2. The authors need to explain their measurement of arrival times and also provide examples of how these 
were measured. 
3.The results in table 1 need further statistical analysis. Only an ANOVA has been performed and the 
authors need to show us if there is any intergroup significance with pairwise comparisons. 
4.There are a lot of misused terms and the english is confusing - this would need editing. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-32 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Grey scale enhancement by a new self-made contrast agent in early cirrhotic stage of rabbit liver Title: 
 2  17 January 2007 Version: Date: 
 Christoph F Dietrich Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors did not mention the explanation of the contrast media in the 
manuscript. 
Methods 
1. done 
2. The authors should mention why there was no time intensity curve measurement of HA-HVTT, only for PIT. They discuss a difference of only 2 seconds of arrival time in HA and PV in the discussion section. ----- The 
delayed time of fist bubble appeared in hepatic artery, portal vein and 
hepatic vein was defined as the arrival time of corresponding vessels. HA-HVTT was defined as the time interval from the arrival time of HA to the arrival time of HV. And we use cine-loop function of ViVid 7 to calculate 
the time instead of time-acoustic intensity curve. While PIT is measured 
through time-acoustic intensity curve as a reason of the peak signal 
intensity have to be indicated in the curve. This is mentioned in the methods section. è In our opinion this is no satisfying answer. 
3. Statistical values should be given in the following manner: Mean 
value + - Standard deviaton [Minimum –Maximum] ------ All data in the present paper are given in the manner of mean ? SD. è The authors should give the data including the minimum – maximum values. 
4. Acceptable 
5. Acceptable 6. Acceptable 7. Acceptable 
8. In the introduction section they mention the potential of ultrasound 
contrast agents to produce Doppler shifts. Did they use a Doppler technique? In this case the MI of 0.24 is questionable. Did they use a low MI harmonic technique (commercially available in Vivid 7?). The authors should discuss 
the technique used more precisely. -------In our study, we used low MI 
harmonic technique in the whole study but not Doppler technique. ViVid 7 does not support the Doppler techniques under contrast condition. MI is set at 0.24 in ViVid 7. MI of 0.24 is an experimental value è The authors should 
mention this in the text not only in the comments. 
9. The authors should add the information how long the contrast agent 
was detectable. ------Grey scale enhancement could last more than 50 min 
from both visual assessment and quantitative statistical analysis. But in 
our study, we only detected about 5 minitues after administration only to 
get the peak signal intensity from tome-acoustic intensity Curve. è The authors should mention this in the text not only in the comment 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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)
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-32 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Grey scale enhancement by a new self-made contrast agent in early cirrhotic stage of rabbit liver Title: 
 2  24 January 2007 Version: Date: 
 Adrian Lim Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
The numbers are small and statistical review by a statistician to ensure that the appropriate statistical 
analysis has been performed is suggested. I note that there are 5 groups (F0 to F4) and only 12 rabbits 
used. Please provide the number of subjects in each category in table 1. 
The data would be enhanced if table 1 could be presented graphically (also you only need to include the 
statistics which are signifcant). The discussion although improved needs to include some of the more 
recent papers which investigate hepatic transit times in liver fibrosis within humans. More information on the 
make and content of the microbubble would also enhance the introduction and discussion. A limitations 
section should also be included. 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited Quality of written English: 
 Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the statistics. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
No
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-32 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Grey scale enhancement by a new self-made contrast agent in early cirrhotic stage of rabbit liver Title: 
 3  3 April 2007 Version: Date: 
 Christoph F Dietrich Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
even it seems difficult to get the required improvementes from the authors I 
would suggest to accept in its current stage. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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)
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-32 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Grey scale enhancement by a new self-made contrast agent in early cirrhotic stage of rabbit liver Title: 
 5  5 June 2007 Version: Date: 
 John H Kalbfleisch Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
The big issue I have is with the statistical analysis. The authors are still vague 
about their analysis details. Publication of the manuscript would be acceptable 
if the authors address these aspects. 
1) mention the specific kind of analysis of variance that was used, 
2) indicate why that choice is appropriate for the design of their study 
in which 12 animals were measured at different study conditions, and 
3) give stage summary statistics for the comparisons indicated in the 
current Table 3 (as the combination of Table 1 and Table 2 go together). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
John H. Kalbfleisch, Ph.D.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-31 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Efficacy of Rifabutin-based Triple Teraphy as Second-line to Eradicate Helicobacter Pylori Infection Title: 
 1  10 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 Giovanni Cammarota Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General: The present study is the first clinical trial designed to compare, as a second-line treatment, a 
rifabutin-based regimen with standard quadruple therapy. The study is well designed and conducted. The 
relevant literature is sufficiently reflected in the paper.Although the study provides negative results, I think it should be published. Rifabutin is used as a salvage treatment against mycobacterium tuberculosis and as prophylactic against the mycobacterium avium infection in HIV-positive patients. It should be used, 
therefore, with prudence in order to avoid an increasing of resistance to this drug. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached): None. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct): 
In the Discussion session, it should be mentioned that different geographical areas may reflect the different 
results obtained by other study. For example, another study conducted in Spain (Gisbert JP et al Aliment 
Pharmacol Ther 2006;24(10):1469-74) achieved similar negative findings by using a third-line savage 
package containing a rifabutin-based triple regimen (the study should be cited). 
The English should be revised. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-31 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Efficacy of Rifabutin-based Triple Teraphy as Second-line to Eradicate Helicobacter Pylori Infection Title: 
 1  7 March 2007 Version: Date: 
 Colm A O'Morain Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
This is an interesting study in which two second line regimes were compared. Quadruple therapy 
(omeprazole, bismuth, amoxicillin and rifabutin) was compared to rifabutin amoxicillin and omepraxole, all 
given for one week. The presence of H. pylori was tested by an endoscopy and by histology, microbiology and a rapid urease test and a U.B.T. test. The study was originally designed to recruit 220 patients but an interim analysis allowed discontinuance of the study. It is a carefully planned administrative study. 
Eradication rates with the triple rifabutin was disappointing. Reasons for the failure are not clear. No 
antibiograms were done. 
Questions 
? All of the patients who failed to complete the course of treatment should be in the intention to trial and 
considered positive in the ITT. ? Figure 2 could be left out. ? Why were test and treat patients left out? 
Overall an excellent paper which is well written and concise. A negative important result which has clinical 
importance. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-31 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Efficacy of Rifabutin-based Triple Teraphy as Second-line to Eradicate Helicobacter Pylori Infection Title: 
 3  27 April 2007 Version: Date: 
 TJ Borody Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
The revised manuscript is a significant improvement from the original but continues to be inadequate. The 
Abstract should contain an appropriate ‘Conclusion’ and not ‘Discussion’ as stated.If this is a typo mistake 
then it is at odds with the authors’ conclusion described on Page 9, which contains a true statement that ‘ 
rifabutin regimen applied for 7 days was not found to be effective as a second line rescue treatment ……’. 
Also, the Abstract should ideally list the amounts of drug used so that a reader can glean the data at a 
glance. 
The weakness of this study remains in the design in that the authors used low doses of accompanying 
drugs as a rifabutin-based treatment regimen – in such doses clearly known to be ineffective - from results 
of several past studies to compare with a standard QT regimen. For this reason, the authors may have 
come to a false conclusion that rifabutin regimen is inferior to QT. This needs to be better addressed. 
The authors have addressed some of the key issues raised in the previous report although the basis for 
using a rifabutin treatment regimen that is destined to give poor results for failed eradication has not been 
adequately discussed. For example the discussion of Ref 28 [Borody et al ] previously suggested indicates 
the Authors missed the point of that paper. That paper does not suggest that a longer treatment might be better but it specifies that in spite of using low dose of rifabutin high eradication could be achieved through 
markedly increasing the amoxicillin dose [50-100% more over published figures] and the proton pump 
inhibitor dose [100-300% equivalent] . Otherwise the readers with take away the message that ANY rifabutin 
based therapy is ineffective. The Authors need to make the point that under-dosing with the amoxicillin and 
PPI’s might be the cause of poor results…and that a better dosing should be sought…using comparative 
studies. That would be an acceptable story and publishable. A matter of adjusting the conclusions.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-31 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Efficacy of Rifabutin-based Triple Teraphy as Second-line to Eradicate Helicobacter Pylori Infection Title: 
 4  21 May 2007 Version: Date: 
 Colm A O'Morain Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
I am happy that they have answered my questions. It can be published 
now.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-30 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Endoscopists attitudes on the publication of quality data for endoscopic procedures: a cross-sectionalTitle: 
survey 
 1  18 May 2007 Version: Date: 
 Robert H Fletcher Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors address and important issue. Outcomes of procedures have been shown to vary greatly by physician. Patients and their physicians should have the information needed to take this into account when chosing who will do their procedure. This report is clear and generally complete 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
Which non-parametrci tests were used? 
I was unsure what "collecting any data" meant. Do 25% of endoscopists record nothing about procedures or 
does this phrase refer to tabular data over and above notes in the patient's medical record? 
In the last paragraph of the discussion, should mention that to be interpretable to the general public, the 
data would have to be collected by a uniform method. 
Table 2 should show demominators. It is unclear to me how columns 5-8, "currently performing" etc, are professional groups and how they were used in the body of the manuscript. So that the tables are free-standing, the 5-point scale with 5 being the highest should be noted, along with p 
values. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Data are pleural ("these data" in discussion). 
A recent article from the US might be cited: Lieberman D, Nadel M, Smith R, Atkin W et al (Fletcher RH). 
Standardized colonoscopy reporting and data system (CO-RADS): Report of the Quality Assurance Task 
Force Group of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2007;65:757-766. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-30 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Endoscopists attitudes on the publication of quality data for endoscopic procedures: a cross-sectionalTitle: 
survey 
 2  18 June 2007 Version: Date: 
 Emiel Verdaasdonk Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
The authors have made all suggested changes. However, one thing confuses me. The box-plots in Figure 1 
and 2 seem not to correspond with the scores displayed in Table 2. The authors state in the x axes that the 
box plots show the mean, standard deviation, minimal and maximal as in Table 2. According to my knowledge box-plots present median, 25th percentile, minimal and maximal value. Furthermore, there are outliers and extremes when scores are higher or lower than 1.5 times the interquartile. In Figure 1 the 
box-plots even exceeds 5. How is this possible, because the maximal Likert score is 5? The authors have to 
clarify this. Has there been made an error? Is the data from Table 2 incorrect or that of the box-plots? Either 
show medians or means. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
The authors have made all suggested changes 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Some changes have been made. 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-30 (2007)

Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopists attitudes on the publication of quality data for endoscopic
procedures: a cross-sectional survey
Version: 3Date:11 July 2007
Reviewer: Emiel Verdaasdonk
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
No comments anymore
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
No comments anymore
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
No comments anymore
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-7-29 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Findings in patients with chronic intestinal dysmotility investigated by capsule endoscopy Title: 
 1  7 May 2007 Version: Date: 
 Warwick Selby Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is an interesting and original study. There are some limititations but the findings show that CE can be 
done on patients with CID, assuming that obstruction has been ruled out as far as possible as it was in these subjects. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) The major limitiation is that the capsule endoscopy studies do not appear to have been read blind. This 
makes interpretation of the findings difficult, particularly the claim that the authors could identify dilatation of 
the small intestine. There are no findings given for the controls, so we don't know whether they had 
mucosal breaks. It should be made clear how the controls were selected and if the studies were blinded. How many people read the studies? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 1. Was only one patient taking NSAIDs or aspirin. This should be stated in the methods, not just in the 
results for the patient with multiple ulcers. 
2. Table 1 should include whether the surgery that was done included a small bowel resection as this could affect transit. It is in the text but would be clearer in the table as well. 3. Were any of the patients anaemic or hypoproteinaemic, particularly those with mucosal 
breaks/ulcerations? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-29 (2007)

Reviewer's report
Title:Findings in patients with chronic intestinal dysmotility investigated by
capsule endoscopy
Version: 2Date:4 July 2007
Reviewer: Ervin Toth
Reviewer's report:
General
All points raised in my previous review have been correctly answered by the
authors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 without revision
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-29 (2007)

Reviewer's report
Title:Findings in patients with chronic intestinal dysmotility investigated by
capsule endoscopy
Version: 2Date:5 July 2007
Reviewer: Warwick Selby
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
None after revision
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
None after revision
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
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-7-28 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Anxiety and depression in patients with gastrointestinal cancer: does knowledge of cancer diagnosis Title: 
matter? 
 1  11 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 Alv Dahl Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I am sorry for my conclusion, but this paper does not reach the scientific standards of an international 
journal for the reasons given below. I recommend publication in a national journal. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
1) The sample is heterogenous with cancers from the whole gastrointestinal tract (GIT). To represent a new 
contribution, the sample has to consist of one type of GIT cancers with staging and treatment information. 
2) Without being introduced as a research aim, the study compares anxiety and depression in patients who 
are informed or not informed about their cancer. This is a major focus of the paper, which should be 
introduced and presented as an aim. 
3) The presentation of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) is based on old references and 
thinking. This should be updated. See for example Bjelland et al:J Psychosom Res 2002;52:69-77 or 
Olssøn et al: BMC Psychiatry 2005,5:46. 
4) Nothing is staed about the use of statistical software. To use ANOVA when 142 patients are separated 
into four groups has a considerable risk of type II error, and no correction like Bonferroni has been applied. 
5) Table 1. should rather be divided into cancer patients who were informed or not. 
6) The study is only descriptive. At this level of research som regression analyses should be performed in 
order to examine which factors that show the strongest associations with anxiety and depression. 
7) The Discussion lacks a comparison with the findings of other studies in the field. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
The English is quite good, but some misspellings should be corrected. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Reject because too small an advance to publish What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-28 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Anxiety and depression in patients with gastrointestinal cancer: does knowledge of cancer diagnosis Title: 
matter? 
 1  3 May 2007 Version: Date: 
 Colin Martin Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is a generally well-written and interesting report investigating the psychological experiences, in terms of 
anxiety and depression of patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal cancer. The article will appeal to readers 
with an interest in the psychosocial aspect of gastrointestinal cancer and will also be of relevance to those 
with an interest in the cross-cultural persepective of the cancer patients psychological experience. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
One issue within the current paper is that of the definition of with/without knowledge. Since all the patients 
have a ca diagnosis and the authors use a criteria of 'patients ability to acknowledge the illness', which to 
me seems a little vague, clarification on what this actually means specifically both in assessment and acheivement of such criteria is required. 
On page 7. a p value of 0.05 should not be described as marginal. 
In table 2. I would prefer to see the degrees of freedom for the analysis added. 
Where means are included in the text I would also personally prefer to have the SD's repported. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
There are a few spelling and grammar errors in the manuscript which would benefit from a thorough 
spelling/grammar check. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-28 (2007)

Reviewer's report
Title:Anxiety and depression in patients with gastrointestinal cancer: does
knowledge of cancer diagnosis matter?
Version: 2Date:23 June 2007
Reviewer: Alv Dahl
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
The paper is considerably improved after the revision. I think the aims still should
be stated more explicitly: 1) anxiety and depression in gastrointestinal cancer
patients, and 2) the role of knowledge about the cancer diagnosis.
The paper now focus more on the cultural and resource situation of medical
services in the Middle East, and I think this aspects should be still more
emphasized.
It is still unclear if the HADS was given in an interview format or was based on
self-rating. Please clarify that.
Two different cut off levels of the HADS are applied, one for descriptive statistics
and one for the regression analyses. I would prefer that they simply stuck to the
last one.
Table 1 and 2 should be simplified without subgroups on age for example.
Instead a thrid table showing the results of the logistic regression analyses
should be introduced.
There seem to be a significant association between illiteracy and not knowing the
diagnosis. The relevance of level of education seem worthwhile to examine
further. should
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
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-7-27 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Effects of abdominal hot compresses on indocyanine green elimination - a randomized cross over Title: 
study in healthy subjects 
 1  22 December 2006 Version: Date: 
 Daniel De Backer Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Although the procedure tested (application of hot compresses) was unknown to me and may be of modest 
interest for the average reader, I should congratulate the authors for having scientifically tested the 
hypothesis that this technique may or may not work. 
The current protocol (2x2 cross over dessign) was adequately performed and the results analyzed using 
apropriate statistical tests. The analysis of 2 different decay cruves allows to better differenciate the elimination processes that may have been affected by hot compresses. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) The study reports interesting findings, but the discussion needs to cover the potential limitations of the 
study: 
1/ The authors used ICGPDR to evaluate liver blood flow and function. The major pitfall of this test is that it 
does not separate flow and function, and that opposite changes may be missed. As the study was performed in volunteers, it is unlikely that function was unaltered at baseline, but one cannot rule out that 
local heat impaired liver function so that an increase in liver blood flow may be missed. This is a technical 
issue that need to be discussed, but the conclusions will be the same on the usefulness of the intervention. 2/ More importantly, the PDR was normal at baseline. Is there any evidence, that PDR can further increase 
when blood flow is indeed further increased ? 
3/ One patient experienced an increase in bilirubin after 1st measurment. Was it a control or heat study ? 
Please address this important issue in the discussion. How was this increase in bilirubin detected. Did you performed routine biological testing in these volunteers? If yes, these should be reported. 4/ Finally no sick patients were included, and the response may differ in patients compared t healthy 
volunteers. This study does not rule out a potential beneficial effect in patients with liver disease. This 
should be addressed in the discussion. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-27 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Effects of abdominal hot compresses on indocyanine green elimination - a randomized cross over Title: 
study in healthy subjects 
 1  8 January 2007 Version: Date: 
 Samir Sakka Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
In 13 healthy volunteers, Dr. Huber et al. studied the effects of abdominal warm wraps on indocyanine 
green plasma disappearance rate (ICG-PDR) as an indicator of hepato-splanchnic blood flow. In their results, no significant increase in ICG-PDR was observed, thus the authors conclude that abdominal warm compresses do not lead to an increase in intestinal blood flow. 
This study is of particular clinical interest. However, I have some comments: 
General comments: 
1. Please mention the results on liver specific enzyme tests you obtained. 
2. You mention in detail the area you warmed, however, data on patients height and weight are missing. 
3. One major limitation is that you did not have any reference technique for your ICG-PDR findings. Did you 
perform Doppler ultrasound or use other reference techniques? 
4. What about variability of ICG-PDR measurements per se ? 
5. Please express ICG half life data also as k-value (%/min). 
6. Your discussion should mention also limitations of your study (see above). 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I received honoraria from Pulsion Medical Systems AG for giving lectures.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-7-27 (2007)

Reviewer's report 
 Effects of abdominal hot compresses on indocyanine green elimination - a randomized cross over Title: 
study in healthy subjects 
 3  27 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 Samir Sakka Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: