JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0253-y (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:The Prevalence of Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease and Esophageal
Dysmotility in Chinese Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
Version:2Date:15 October 2014
Reviewer: Simon Hart
Reviewer's report:
This is a good paper describing detailed characterisation of state-of-the-art
esophageal physiology measurements in a cohort of Chinese patients with IPF.
The paper illustrates the different parameters measured by different techniques
and the associations (or lack of) between them, and highlights that "typical"
GERD symptoms are poor markers of abnormal esophageal physiology in IPF.
Major corrections (compulsory)
The authors should define early in the paper what they define as
“gastro-esophageal reflux disease”, “GERD+” and “GERD-“. I presume the
definition is based on 24h esophageal pH.
Comment on the validity of the various “normal values” described in the text and
tables. What is the normal population and how does it compare to the
demographics (especially older age) of the IPF population?
Comorbidity is common in IPF. The authors should justify why patients with
comorbidities were excluded from the analysis, thus skewing the population
studied.
P4 line 88 explain what is the “standard questionnaire”
Include some discussion of acid vs non-acid reflux, including discussion of the
high prevalence of abnormal physiology in the GERD- group.
Discuss why the GERD+ group had more weak peristalsis
P9 line 208-210. The authors claim that screening should be performed in IPF,
but the their results do not directly support this claim. This would require a study
of screening vs conventional care in IPF and comparison of outcomes.
Line 210-212. Suggest replace this sentence with “Further studies are required to
determine whether treatment of reflux and abnormal esophageal function alters
outcomes in IPF”, or something similar.
Minor corrections (compulsory)
A number of spelling or grammatical errors
P2 line 29 delete “predictive”
P3 line 61 define EFT
P6 line 139 “were” not “was”
Line 141 “are shown” not “was showed”
Line 144 last sentence is clumsy.
Table 1 spelling “Heartburn”
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/s12876-015-0253-y (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:The Prevalence of Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease and Esophageal
Dysmotility in Chinese Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
Version:3Date:5 December 2014
Reviewer: Jeffrey Swigris
Reviewer's report:
I am satisfied with the changes.
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/s12876-015-0253-y (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:The Prevalence of Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease and Esophageal
Dysmotility in Chinese Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
Version:3Date:21 November 2014
Reviewer: fernando Herbella
Reviewer's report:
The authors did not acknowledged the possibility of gerd due to an increased
transdiaphragmatic pressure gradient. They assume gerd occurs only due to a
defective barrier. This may not be true in patients with pulmonary diseases as
shown by the own results of the manuscript.
The manuscript, after revision, became too long, confusing, discuss unrelated
topics and languague is really poor.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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/s12876-015-0253-y (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:The Prevalence of Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease and Esophageal
Dysmotility in Chinese Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
Version:3Date:7 December 2014
Reviewer: Simon Hart
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed my comments and amended their
manuscript.satisfactorily.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
None
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0253-y (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:The Prevalence of Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease and Esophageal
Dysmotility in Chinese Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
Version:3Date:21 November 2014
Reviewer: Edoardo Savarino
Reviewer's report:
I’m really satisfied with the changes made by the Authors
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: 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/s12876-015-0254-x (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Clinical significance of serum triglyceride elevation at early stage of acute
biliary pancreatitis
Version:2Date:13 October 2014
Reviewer: Luca Frulloni
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
The paper from Cheng et al. describe the role of elevation of TG in patients with
acute biliary pancreatitis. The clinical question is important and the results seems
to clear demonstrate that hypertrigliceridemia may affect the clinical outcome of
the disease, in term of organ failure (particularly respiratory failure) and also
mortality. Indeed, to select a homogeneous group of patients (biliary pancreatitis)
is a good tool to investigate the potential role of elevation of TG in prognosis of
ABP.
1. A main remark is that the Auhtors did not clarify the TG cut off to divide
patients in normal and elevated TG levels.
2. Authors correctly evaluated the presence of necrosis in <30%, 30-50% and
>50%. However, no mention of the methods section. I suppose that they used
the Balthazar classification on CT, but they have to state that in method section.
3. I suggest also to separate organ failure in transient and persistent, to graduate
it.
4. APACHE 2 score is not a prognostic score, but it is able to evaluate the
severity of the disease in the day when calculated. So, was APACHE2 score
calculated at the admission in all patients?
5. The Authors reported the data of many parameters in severe acute
pancreatitis following Atlanta revised criteria. I suggest to include in figure 3 and
4 also data on mild and moderate-severe pancreatitis.
6. I sugegst also to insert mortality and need for surgery surgery in table 4 .
7. No data are reported about jaundice and cholangitis in these patients, that
correlate with prognosis. I strongly suggest to insert these clinical data.
7. ERCP and endoscopic sphincterotomy have been reported as able to modify
prognosis in severe ABP, particularly in patients with jaundice and cholangitis. I
suggest to insert these data.
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:
no at all
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0254-x (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Clinical significance of serum triglyceride elevation at early stage of acute
biliary pancreatitis
Version:2Date:13 October 2014
Reviewer: Claudia Stefanutti
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. There is no mention of treatment. The ms deserves a comment on how
treatment (and which kind of treatment) may affect the outcome of the study and
to what extent this may influence the conclusive remarks on results proposed by
the Authors;
2. Table 2. Page 19: Change C-reaction protein in C.reactive protein;
3. The list of references is excessively short and not enough updated. Check the
international literature and update the list. Comment the new references that will
be added in the text, accordingly.
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/s12876-015-0254-x (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Clinical significance of serum triglyceride elevation at early stage of acute
biliary pancreatitis
Version:3Date:10 November 2014
Reviewer: Luca Frulloni
Reviewer's report:
No
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. I probably will be involved in gene
therapy of acute pancreatitis secondary to hypertrigliceridemia.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0254-x (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Clinical significance of serum triglyceride elevation at early stage of acute
biliary pancreatitis
Version:3Date:1 December 2014
Reviewer: Claudia Stefanutti
Reviewer's report:
Good day Dr Fuzhou Tian and Colleagues,
I appreciated the changes you made. The Ms is now stronger and scientifically
warranted. Nice paper as well.
Good luck.
Best wishes,
Claudia Stefanutti, MD, PhD, Professor of Internal Medicine
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
Nothing to declare.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0254-x (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Clinical significance of serum triglyceride elevation at early stage of acute
biliary pancreatitis
Version:3Date:10 December 2014
Reviewer: Marisa Bare
Reviewer's report:
I think this manuscript needs to explain how was the sample determined, if
patients were selected in a period or there was a sample estimation according to
a previous hypothesis.
On the other hand, statistical tests are correct. Nevertheless, I recommend the
authors to better explain that quantitative variables are described as mean and
SD, unless otherwise stated (median and interquartile range).
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0246-x (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Alpha-Fetoprotein-Producing Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of the Pancreas:
a Case Report
Version:1Date:23 March 2014
Reviewer: Chuang-Chi Liaw
Reviewer's report:
"Alpha-Fetoprotein-Producing Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of the Pancreas: a
Case Report" is interesting and worth for report.
AFP-producing pancreatic cancer cells possess cancer stem cells characteristics
The criteria for diagnosis of neuroendocrine carcinoma also meets for criteria.
But we don;t know whether the case is a pure neuroendicrine carcinoma or
mixed other component,
I suggest no use of the term "pure" for the neuroendocrine carcinuma
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/s12876-015-0257-7 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:A retrospective cohort study of Laparoscopic Subtotal Colectomy with
Antiperistaltic Cecorectal Anastomosis in Treating Adult Slow Transit
Constipation : 81 cases
Version:2Date:23 January 2014
Reviewer: EZIO FALLETTO
Reviewer's report:
This is an interseting and well written manuscript on a well conducted study,
nevertheless some minor revisions are needed.
INTRODUCTION: You use many abbreviations (WIS, WCS, etc...) with no prior
description. Please define.
SURGICAL PROCEDURE: A better description of your surgical procedure is
needed, in particular the description of type and way of making of ceco-rectal
anastomosis could be important
PATIENT DATA ACQUISITION:
- You use many abbreviations (WIS, WCS, etc...) with no prior description.
Please define.
- in which way did you collected the follow up data at 3-6-12 months (by phone,
clinical visit, questionnaire, etc..?)
DISCUSSION: In which way did you "observed considerable excremet and gas
residue" in patients with long blind loop?
TABLES: In the Tables you use many abbreviations (WIS, WCS, etc...) with no
prior description. Please define.
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/s12876-015-0402-3 (2015)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: WNT5A Transforms Intestinal CD8αα+ IELs into an Unconventional Phenotype with Pro -
inflammatory Features  
 
Version: 1 Date: 20 Oct 2015  
 
Reviewer: Eleonora  Patsenker  
 
Reviewer ’s report:  
 
Please, read again the sentence on p.17, lines 25 -30 and correct.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are  required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality o f language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received  reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gai n or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salar y from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answe r no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand t hat my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be mad e available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, whi ch will not be published  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0403-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Nutritional Status of Adolescents with Crohn's Disease: A Prospective
Cross-sectional Study
Version:2Date:1 July 2015
Reviewer: RACHELE CICCOCIOPPO
Reviewer's report:
GENERAL COMMENTS
The topic of the impact of chronic diseases in general, and of inflammatory bowel
disease in particular, on nutritional status in transitional age is an emerging area
of interest for both researchers and clinicians. In this context, the paper by Costa
and coworkers is of great clinical utility. Although the paper is well presented,
organized in a logical and easy sequence, the length and bibliography
appropriate, there are a number of issues that should be improved. Here below,
please, find more detailed comments.
Minor Essential Revisions
Introduction. A re-organization of the paragraphs in this section is requested to
avoid the fragmentation of the topics.
Methods/results. Although the authors claim that the clinical index of activity was
assessed, no trace of their values (median ± SD in both Crohn’s disease groups)
are given throughout the text and/or in Table 2. Moreover, a correlation between
this score and the level of nutrients should be calculated. In this regard, the worst
iron level observed in the inactive CD group could be explained with a longer
duration of the disease in comparison with the active group, although the values
are not statistically different probably because of a high SD.
The iconography should be presented in a more professional form.
Lastly, although writing is fairly good throughout the text, there are spots where
language revision is needed, and there are a number of typos in the manuscript
that must be corrected (very often DC is used instead CD – at page 11, first line
p<0.05 should be replaced with p>0.05 – the explanation of all acronyms only
should be given only at the first time).
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/s12876-015-0403-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Nutritional Status of Adolescents with Crohn's Disease: A Prospective
Cross-sectional Study
Version:2Date:4 July 2015
Reviewer: Annalisa Schiepatti
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The problem of undernutrition/malnutrition in adolescents affected by CD is an
important one and it is clearly explained in the text. The aim of the study to
provide a snapshot of the nutritional status of CD adolescents in Brazil must be
clearly stated also in the title, abstract and discussion (not only in the last few
lines of the "Background").
2. On the basis of the present study, Brazilian adolescents affected by CD are at
nutritional risk. However, in the biochemical assessment of the nutritional status,
some important parameters are lacking: haemoglobin, prealbumin, cholesterol,
triglycerides. All these parameters are quite easy to be obtained and some of
them are of outmost importance in the baseline clinical evaluation of CD patients
and may influence clinical decisions. In particular hemoglobin because CD
patients very often suffer from anemia. Moreover, it would have been very
interesting to see hemoglobin values, in light of the iron deficiency that resulted
higher in inactive CD than active CD. Secondly, prealbumin, given its shorter
halflife than that of albumin, is a very good parameter to evaluate nutritional
status.
3. Discussion is quite rough. It is absolutely necessary to have a more detailed
and critical approach to results (for example, the problem of iron deficiency is
discussed, whereas albumin deficiency is not). Then, the limitations of the study,
if any, must be clearly stated (that, actually, are completely lacking). Secondly,
any information about the duration of the study must be given in the "Methods"
section and not only rapidly mentioned in the "Discussion"(see the first paragraph
of "Discussion").
4. Pay attention to the discrepancy between saying that a result is not statistically
significant and the p value written in brackets (see the first line on page 11 in the
manuscript). Please, correct it.
MINOR ESSENTIAL REVISIONS
1. Please correct "The controls were selected from among individuals" by
deleting "from"(at the beginning of the Methods section)
DISCRETIONARY REVISIONS
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0399-7 (2015)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Outcomes and risk factors for cancer patients undergoing endoscopic intervention of  
malignant biliary obstruction  
 
Version: 1 Date: 12 Oct 2015  
 
Reviewer:  Conrado M  Fernandez Rodriguez  
 
Reviewer ’s report:  
 
Thank you for addressing most of my com ments.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well de scribed?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is re commended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation  that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, e ither now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relatin g to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5.  Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6.  Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing i nterests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
The authors have satifactorily address most of my objections.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the  manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will no t be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0399-7 (2015)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Outcomes and risk factors for cancer patients undergoing endoscopic intervention of  
malignant biliary obstruction  
 
Version: 1 Date: 12 Nov 2015  
 
Reviewer:  Dora  Lam-Himlin  
 
Reviewer ’s report:  
 
None  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well de scribed?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is re commended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation  that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, e ither now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relatin g to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5.  Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6.  Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing i nterests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the  manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will no t be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0398-8 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Title: Comparison of medical costs generated by IBS patients in primary
and secondary care in the Netherlands
Version:2Date:26 June 2015
Reviewer: Bridget Southwell
Reviewer's report:
BMC Gastro Flik et al.
This is a well written paper in an interesting area. The authors have collected
data on the costs of healthcare for IBS patients in primary and secondary
settings and compared these to patients without IBS. The study is done in the
Netherlands where healthcare insurance is compulsory. The data is obtained
from one Insurance company which is one of the largest in the Netherlands and
covers more than 1 million patients and from a Primary Care Network at the
University Medical Centre in Utrecht covering ¼ million patients. The data reveal
the increase in costs in patients diagnosed with IBS and in secondary care.
Policy and practise rely on data on the costs of treatments and these authors are
to be commended for extracting this data for IBS.
Minor Essential Revisions:
Data is presented comprehensively in 5 large tables. I have some small editorial
suggestions for the tables and in the text.
Table 2, 3, 4, 5 : add the letter ‘T’ and its definition into heading
Add ‘(SD)’ to headings to read ‘Mean (SD) annual after’ and ‘Mean (SD) dif’ so it
is clear what the number in brackets is. I did find it in the heading but this would
make it immediate for the reader.
Where p<0.05- bold the value. This is a standard that draws the reader’s
attention to the significant rows.
Table 3: Is the column for p values missing? It makes sense to have it as in the
other tables.
Text comments:
There is inconsistent use of a space before reference brackets- ie sometimes
there is a space and sometimes there is not. Make it consistent throughout the
document.
Page 6 line 138, change ‘ensured’ to ‘insured’
Page 6 line 141, add space after full stop.
Page 12 line 271, add space after ‘IBS’
Page 12 line 286, should ‘specialism’ be ‘specialty’
Page 14 line 325, add space between ‘these’ and ‘criteria’
Page 14 line 337-338. Points in the conclusion should have been made already,
rather than appearing for the first time in the conclusion. The sentence ‘this factor
stresses……” is in the conclusion but has not been stated in the discussion.
Please discuss this concept in the discussion. You can use more sentences to
discuss it.
Page 16 line 378, move ‘suggestion’ to between ‘gave’ and ‘with’.
end.
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/s12876-015-0389-9 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Albumin treatment regimen for type 1 hepatorenal syndrome: a
dose-response meta-analysis
Version:3Date:11 June 2015
Reviewer: Rita Garcia Martinez
Reviewer's report:
Salerno et al perform a meta-analysis aiming to investigate the impact of the
albumin dose in the treatment of patients with type 1 hepatorrenal syndrome. The
paper is appropriate, opportune and the question is important, however several
shortcomings deserve further discussion.
Major comments:
1. Methods
• Inclusion of non-randomized studies.. The authors recognize the potential risk
bias of including non-randomized trials, however, the fact that more than half of
the included trials are non-randomized increases this risk and may decreases the
quality of results.
• To my understanding survival and cumulative dose of albumin may be
competitive events since cumulative dose of albumin depends on daily dose plus
days of survival receiving albumin. I wonder whether the events associated to
survival, including dose of albumin would be better analysed using competitive
risk methodology.
2. Results:
• Albumin dose:
- The authors found an association between the cumulative dose of albumin and
survival. However there is only a trend between survival and HRS reversal. If
albumin dose leads to an improvement in survival (causative association) it
would be expected an association also with HRS reversal. The lack of this
association do not support a causative association between albumin cumulative
dose and improvement in survival. The authors defend in the discussion a
causative association. They state that a higher cumulative dose would be due to
longer survival if higher cumulative dose was associated to longer survival. This
is only partially true, since cumulative dose would be more related to HRS
duration and not directly to survival. The establishment of a causative association
is not that clear in the basis of the authors findings and they should moderate
their statements.
• It is surprising that the authors do not find any association with other variables
already known to be important in HRS reversal, such as bilirubin,
vasoconstrictors, basal creatinine... Also another important predicting factor of
HRS is baseline coagulation parameters... Since these are not available, the
statements on the impact of albumin in HRS and survival need to be temperated.
3. Relevance:
• Although there could be a potential benefit on the treatment of HRS type 1 of
higher dose of albumin, the term "cumulative albumin dose" might not be really
useful in clinical practice. It is difficult to predict the length of treatment at
baseline, that is why a daily basis schedule of treatment is preferred. This
practical issue aimed to be resolved is not finally answered in this paper. This is
an open question for prospective studies.
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/s12876-015-0389-9 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Albumin treatment regimen for type 1 hepatorenal syndrome: a
dose-response meta-analysis
Version:4Date:7 September 2015
Reviewer: Aleksander Krag
Reviewer's report:
the revision and reply is satisfactory
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/s12876-015-0389-9 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Albumin treatment regimen for type 1 hepatorenal syndrome: a
dose-response meta-analysis
Version:4Date:3 September 2015
Reviewer: Rita Garcia Martinez
Reviewer's report:
I think the revision of the paper has contributed to an improvement of the article
and I want to congratulate the authors for the important work. I believe this is an
important and relevant paper. I just have a discretionary comment.
- An association between HRS reversal and patient’s baseline characteristics
(creatinine, MELD, bilirubin,...) has been consistently reported in previous
studies. However this meta-analysis found no statistical association (creatinine
p=0.054, other variables >0.10). I think that it would be very welcome in the
discussion the author's point of view/interpretation of this fact. Are these factors
not relevant to the outcome?
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/s12876-015-0396-x (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Immunohistochemical Expression and Outcome in Curatively Resected
Ampulla of Vater Cancer
Version:2Date:22 August 2015
Reviewer: Camilla Böckelman
Reviewer's report:
Yun et al. studied the prognostic impact of known prognostic factors such as
advanced T-stage in ampullary carcinoma. Several similar studies have been
published before with data in line with this study. The study comprises a limited
study population (37 patients). Although the disease in question is rare, previous
studies have included more patients. No major new results are presented.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. The title should be more specific and mention studying cytokeratins CK7 and
CK20. The authors may want to focus and comment more in detail on the result
of CK7+/CK20- being an independent prognostic factor for overall survival.
2. An association analysis for CK7 and CK20 with regard to other clinicopathogic
factors should be presented. The authors mention in the Methods they used the
chi-square test, however, the results from that are not presented other than in the
Discussion.
3. A representative image for the immunohistochemical stainings should be
added.
4. TNM-stage should also be included in all survival analyses.
5. For Tables 3-4, univariate hazard ratios should be provided in addition to
p-values.
Minor Essential Revisions:
6. The authors should in the Background comment more in detail on previous
results on cytokeratins and their biological impact on ampullary cancer.
7. The type of antibody and at what concentration used should be indicated
(mono/polyclonal, catalog number, dilution) for the immunohistochemistry. Were
the results gained from routine stainings?
8. In the Methods overall and disease-free survival (OS) must be defined. The
authors should adhere to eg. the guidelines by Punt et al. (JNCI 2007).
Discretionary Revisions:
9. A language review would improve the text, with special attention to grammar,
punctuation, and spelling.
10. I find it surprising that both 3- and 5-year disease-free survival rates were
75.7%. This may represent a small patient material, being very sensitive to small
fluctuations in survival.
11. The p-value "0.000" (Table 4) should be given as <0.001.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0396-x (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prognostic impact of Immunohistochemical expression of CK7 and CK20 in
curatively resected ampulla of Vater cancer
Version:4Date:8 October 2015
Reviewer: Jae-Hoon Lee
Reviewer's report:
• Major Compulsory Revisions
• Minor Essential Revisions
1. In univariate analysis (Table-2), p-values are different from those were in
original manuscript while the number of cases, OS and DFS rates are identical.
Change was so substantial that statistical significance of variables have changed
quite much. In addition, I recommended minimizing the number of variables
included in the multivariate analysis and I believe that authors performed
multivariate analysis accordingly. However, all the values – number, hazard ratio,
and p-value - are definitely same as original analysis. It looks like that the row of
variable ‘subtype’ has been simply removed from the table in this revision. I am
not a statistical expert, but those statistical results should be verified again.
2. Result of CDX2 has been added in this revision. Relevant information needs to
be added in materials and methods section.
3. Background, line 14
“…CK7 positivity was considered as a common feature of intestinal type…” .
Pancreatobiliary type instead of intestinal?
4. Authors could consider including result of bilirubin level again in the
manuscript regardless of their statistical significance in the present study.
Bilirubin level is one of the important clinical factors in diseases of
pancreato-biliary tract.
• Discretionary Revisions
5. Minor comments:
- ‘Poorly differentiation’, ‘mod’ could be changed to ‘poor differentiation’
‘moderate (differentiation)’, or authors may use four-tier grading scale (G1-G4)
- Methods section, under heading of statistical analysis
Use full name instead of OS. Authors did not use abbreviations for survival
outcomes in the rest of manuscript.
- Tables: ‘AJCC’ stage instead of ‘overall’ stage as previously described in the
methods section.
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/s12876-015-0396-x (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prognostic impact of Immunohistochemical expression of CK7 and CK20 in
curatively resected ampulla of Vater cancer
Version:4Date:8 October 2015
Reviewer: Camilla Böckelman
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript entitled "Prognostic impact of immunohistochemical expression
of CK7 and CK20 in curatively resected ampulla of Vater cancer" has been
adequately revised by the authors. However, some of the questions were still not
addressed.
Major Essential Revisions:
My previous comment seems not to have been addressed: "An association
analysis for CK7 and CK20 with regard to other clinicopathogic factors should be
presented. The authors mention in the Methods they used the chi-square test,
however, the results from that are not presented other than in the Discussion."
I do not see the point with the sentence "And we did not analyze the other
immunohistochemical subtype by testing expression of MUC1, MUC2 and etc." in
the end of the Discussion. Why was this added to the current version?
Minor Essential Revisions:
The authors have now provided clone for the antibody, but still no information on
manufacturer or at what dilution they were used for immunohistochemistry. Were
the monoclonal antibodies produced in-house? What do the authors mean by
"prediluted"?
Thank you for now providing representative images for immunostainings, they
seem adequate. However, they were now all uploaded as separate figures. I
suggest that the authors provide _one_ figure with the images in four panels.
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/s12876-015-0391-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:An indeterminate mucin-producing cystic neoplasm containing an
undifferentiated carcinoma with osteoclast-like giant cells: a case report of a rare
association of pancreatic tumors.
Version:2Date:23 July 2015
Reviewer: Arif Ali Ali khan
Reviewer's report:
1. Minor essential revisions
Lots of grammatical and spelling mistakes which need to be corrected.
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/s12876-015-0391-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:An indeterminate mucin-producing cystic neoplasm containing an
undifferentiated carcinoma with osteoclast-like giant cells: a case report of a rare
association of pancreatic tumors.
Version:2Date:8 August 2015
Reviewer: sundeep saluja
Reviewer's report:
The authors have reported a rare case with its outcome. In literature there are
reports regarding both good and bad outcomes. The report is well written
there are few typographical error which may be corrected
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/s12876-015-0392-1 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Is preoperative MRCP necessary for patients with gallstones? An analysis
of the factors related to missed diagnosis of choledocholithiasis by preoperative
ultrasound
Version:2Date:7 October 2014
Reviewer: Andrea Cariati
Reviewer's report:
The discussione and the conclusion chapter must be changed according to this
three articles that must be cited in the test and in the references; in fact at the
moment "Preoperative MRCP cannot be reccomended routinely due to costs".:
papers that report this are:
1) Nebiker CA et al: Is routine MRCP justified prio to cholecystectomy ?
lagenbecks Arch Surg 2009; 394: 1005-10
2) Shapey IM. Biliary tract imaging. Durg laparoscop Endos Perct Tech 2012:
22: 459-62
3) Epelboym L, Winner M al. MRCP is not a .. J Gastrointest Surg 2013 17 863-
71
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0392-1 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Is preoperative MRCP necessary for patients with gallstones? An analysis
of the factors related to missed diagnosis of choledocholithiasis by preoperative
ultrasound
Version:2Date:14 June 2015
Reviewer: Ajay Belgaumkar
Reviewer's report:
Major Revisions:
The introduction is too long. Please reference the latest Cochrane reviews
regarding diagnosis of gallstones and CBD stones. There is no need to give
references such as Pg2 Line 26 stating that "laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the
gold standard for treatment of gallstones".
The multiple detailed references regarding utility of MRCP are all from studies
conducted in populations with a much lower incidence of CBD stones and may
not be relevant to the study population.
The aim of the study is stated but it would be preferable, rather than stating the
aim is to determine what factors predict an inaccurate ultrasound, to explain that
the study aims to find predictive factors for patients who would benefit from
MRCP. There is also no context given, regarding the desirability of pre-op
detection with MRCP rather than intraoperative detection with Intra op
cholangiogram.
The Statistical methods include the univariate analysis was performed to look for
factors predictive of either diagnosing or missing CBD stones on USS and shows
that CBD diameter, raised ALT and the presence of acute cholecystitis were the
main factors. There is no attempt at constructing a multivariate model to predict
failure of USS (or need for MRCP).
The correlations do not have any obvious relevance.
Results: Table 1 is redundant, as is Table 3.
Conclusion:
see above.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0384-1 (2015)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Association between HER2 status in gastric cancer an d clinicopathological features: a  
retrospective study using whole -tissue sections  
 
Version: 0 Date: 19 Aug 2015  
 
Reviewer: Claudio Luchini  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comm ents to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your  comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publi cation of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you curr ently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any  other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named repo rt 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal