JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02237-6 (2022)

Title: Can transrectal ultrasonography distinguish anorectal malignant melanoma from low
rectal adenocarcinoma? a retrospective paired study for ten years
Version: 1 Date: 23 Nov 2021
Reviewer's report:
thank you for the opportunity to review this retrospective study comparing the characteristics
of primary rectal melanoma and adenocarcinoma. Can transrectal ultrasonography distinguish
anorectal malignant melanoma from low rectal adenocarcinoma? a retrospective paired study
for ten years. this study included 36 patients from 2008 to 2019. why tumor matching was only
performed on the sex and age of the patients. it is difficult to conclude that primary melanomas
are more superficial than adenocarcinomas of the lower rectum when all the tumors have not
been included. in fact, in the case of superficial adenocarcinomas of the rectum that are accessible
to local treatment, the majority of endorectal echo-endoscopies find only a limited invasion of
the wall.  It would have been more judicious to describe the complete series and to report the
anatomopathological results compared with those of the echo-endoscopic work-up. Moreover,
magnetic resonance imaging still has a complementary place in preoperative explorations.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02237-6 (2022)

Title: Can transrectal ultrasonography distinguish anorectal malignant melanoma from low
rectal adenocarcinoma? a retrospective paired study for ten years
Version: 1 Date: 13 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
This paper reports on the ultrasonographic features of anorectal melanoma compared to retail
carcinoma. In my eyes this paper would be more interesting as case series with review of the
literature   as the number of patients is low and the ability to diagnose the entity via ultrasound
seems to be very limited.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02243-8 (2022)

Title: Development and validation of a nomogram for prediction of cervical lymph node
metastasis in middle and lower thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 1 Date: 01 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
In this paper, authors developed a nomogram that could be conveniently used to predict the
individualized risk of cervical LN metastasis in patients with middle and lower thoracic ESCC.
I think this nomogram is very concise, which seems to be useful for esophageal surgeons.
However, as described below, this manuscript needs some improvement to publish in BMC
Gastroenterology.
Major points
#The nomogram in this study includes RLN-LN status and PLN status, but it is considered
difficult to strictly distinguish PLN, RLN and MLN in actual surgery.
Authors should describe in detail how to distinguish and ensure the reproducibility of LN
classification in the mediastinum .
#Authors described that the CT-reported cervical LN status was confirmed by two professional
radiologists. However, in fact, the accuracy of cervical lymph node metastasis diagnosis in CT
is not high. The criteria for metastasis in this study should be specified.
Minor points
#I think, for small tumor such as T1 tumors, it is difficult to measure the tumor diameter by
CT scan?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02243-8 (2022)

Title: Development and validation of a nomogram for prediction of cervical lymph node
metastasis in middle and lower thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 1 Date: 03 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The authors developed the nomogram
using four variables for prediction of cervical lymph node metastasis in patients with middle or
lower thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
This manuscript is well-written and valuable. There are some points to be addressed before
publication.
1. The location of the mediastinal lymph node, paraesophageal lymph node, and cervical lymph
node are unclear. The authors should define the location of these lymph nodes clearly using
the image. Moreover, does the cervical lymph include supraclavicular lymph node other than
cervical paraesophageal lymph node?
2. The authors should describe the treatment strategy of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
3. Why did the authors exclude the patients who underwent preoperative chemotherapy or
radiation therapy?
4. There was no definition of CT-reported cervical lymph node status positive.
5. Does three-field lymphadenectomy include supraclavicular lymph node dissection?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02243-8 (2022)

Title: Development and validation of a nomogram for prediction of cervical lymph node
metastasis in middle and lower thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 24 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for submitting the reviced manuscript.
It has been carefully corrected to point by point, and I feel that the content has improved
considerably.
In the future, I look forward to the creation of predictive monograms for subjects who have
undergone preoperative chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02243-8 (2022)

Title: Development and validation of a nomogram for prediction of cervical lymph node
metastasis in middle and lower thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 26 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript is well-rewritten according to our comments.  I consider this manuscript is
acceptable.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02226-9 (2022)

Title: Title: Risk factors for long-term survival in patients with ypN+M0 rectal cancer after
radical anterior resection
Version: 1 Date: 05 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
This is a retrospective analysis from a single institution where the authors investigated the
risk factors for the long term oncologic outcomes of node positive rectal cancer after curative
treatment.
The study was designed straight-forward and the results were clearly presented.
- Major comment:
* The authors emphasized as a main finding the negative effect of angiotensin-converting
enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) on the prognosis of rectal cancer based upon their results, which
does not agree previous researches. The relationship between ACEIs and the risk of colorectal
cancer has been widely studies including large population-based studies. The scientific rationale
provided by the authors seems too weak to convert previous consensus.
* Although this is a retrospective study, inclusion / exclusion criteria needs to  be clearly
mentioned. Some of the excluded cases are not clearly explained (eg. APR, ypN1c for LOOD,
LNR and so on). According to the manuscript, during the study period, two different types of
preoperative therapy had been performed, which might influenced on the outcomes and should
have been included to analysis.
- Minor comment:
* It would have been more interesting study, if they had included initial / preoperative radiologic
findings such as mrTN stages, mrTRG, mrEMVI and so on.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02226-9 (2022)

Title: Title: Risk factors for long-term survival in patients with ypN+M0 rectal cancer after
radical anterior resection
Version: 1 Date: 15 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. I understood this is the single-center
retrospective analysis to identify the risk factor for OS, DFS, and DSS in pN+M0 rectal cancer
patients. You concluded that ACEI had a negative and NLN had a positive effect on the long-
term outcome in the above-mentioned cohort. Several comments are listed below.
• I understood that reports on the risk factor of long-term survival in the group ypN+ are not
consistent; however, what are the real question and unsolved problems in clinical practice?
Clinically, what is troubling you that it is not evident and what would be helpful if it were
evident? You should clarify more about the motivation and purpose of this study in the
background section.
• The main concept of this study is unclear. Do you want to clarify the relationship between
ACEI and long-term results? Or do you want to prove the superiority of the proposed lymph
node-related index (e.g., LNR, LODDS, NLN, etc.) compared to the existing N staging of TNM
classification? What subject do you want to clarify, OS, DFS, or DSS? The sample size is too
small if you want to comprehensively analyze everything including the above. The main theme
of this study should be narrowed down, simplified, and focused on more. Besides, the sub-theme
should be transferred to supplementary tables and figures. Otherwise, your message through this
study will be difficult to convey to readers.
• The tables are needed to explain the contents of the first and second paragraphs of the result.
It is not efficient to extract information from the text alone.
• The results of single-factor analysis and multiple factor analysis should be integrated and
shown in the same table.
• Although several results were extracted and shown as Kaplan-Meier curve in Figures 2 and 3,
the number of graphs was too many and it doesn't tell the reader what the main result is. Besides,
I don't see the clinical significance of creating multiple graphs by changing the cutoff value. The
cutoff value itself is meaningless because if the patient cohort changes the value will also change.
• You should summarize the results of this study using the first paragraph of the discussion
section.
• If you want to conclude that ACEI is significantly related to the prognosis of pN+ rectal cancer,
the mechanism needs to be discussed more deeply.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02226-9 (2022)

Title: Title: Risk factors for long-term survival in patients with ypN+M0 rectal cancer after
radical anterior resection
Version: 4 Date: 12 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
The submitted version of the manuscript is not cleaned for tracked changes and is currently
not fit for proper review. I would like the authors to review their manuscript properly before
resubmission.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02226-9 (2022)

Title: Title: Risk factors for long-term survival in patients with ypN+M0 rectal cancer after
radical anterior resection
Version: 4 Date: 18 Jan 2022
Reviewer:  Chung-yuan Hu
Reviewer's report:
This is a well written manuscript with all the detail analytic methods being provided. Since it's a
project aiming to explorer the factors associated with the DSS and DFS using a small sample, I
would suggest using the log likelihood ratio test (LR test) to exam the association, in addition to
what you have done.(the Wald and logrank test). LR test would be more accurate for all type of
sample sizes and if possible please show us the log likelihood statistics (full model vs the nested
model with one var removed) along with the p-values for each variable so that one can easily
conceptualize the strength of association for each var in the model.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02226-9 (2022)

Title: Title: Risk factors for long-term survival in patients with ypN+M0 rectal cancer after
radical anterior resection
Version: 5 Date: 28 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate obtaining the opportunity to review your manuscript again. I confirmed that your
manuscript has been modified appropriately. In particular, the discussion section included a
detailed discussion of ACEI and NLN. Besides, figures and tables were integrated and omitted
properly. These fundamental changes made have improved the readability.
The remaining concerning points are listed below.
In the abstract, abbreviations frequently appear for the first time. (e.g., DFS, ACEIs, HR, DSS,
etc.) At least the first time, non-abbreviated names should be described.
In the process of study group formation shown in Table 1, cases with postoperative mortality
within 30 days are excluded; however, you mentioned “30-day mortality after surgery was 1.7%”
in the results section (line 136). If it is to be excluded from the analysis, it should NOT be
mentioned.
In your manuscript, Figure 2A appeared after Figure 2B and 2C. It should be corrected in the
proper order.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02226-9 (2022)

Title: Title: Risk factors for long-term survival in patients with ypN+M0 rectal cancer after
radical anterior resection
Version: 5 Date: 06 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Chung-yuan Hu
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for providing the LR test in detail. I like the way you presented how you conducted it.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02224-x (2022)

Title: Value of nonenhanced CT combined with laboratory examinations in the diagnosis of
acute suppurative cholecystitis treated with percutaneous cholecystostomy : A retrospective
study
Version: 3 Date: 07 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
The paper is interesting and overall well written.
My suggestions are:
1) The English grammar should be improved
2) The therapeutic strategy (percutaneous approach) should be made explicit in the title
3) In the Discussion the authors should cite that there are also other newer therapeutic treatments
for AC, in particular EUS-guided LAMS (cite the recent paper PMID: 34339667)
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02224-x (2022)

Title: Value of nonenhanced CT combined with laboratory examinations in the diagnosis of
acute suppurative cholecystitis treated with percutaneous cholecystostomy : A retrospective
study
Version: 3 Date: 07 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
I read with interest the manuscript by Bai-Qing Chen et al entitled “Value of nonenhanced CT
combined with laboratory examinations in the diagnosis of acute suppurative cholecystitis: A
retrospective study”
The work deals with a relevant and trending topic considering the impact of nonenhanced CT
combined with laboratory examinations in the diagnosis of acute suppurative cholecystitis. The
work was conducted with a good methodology and it carries some interesting results; however,
there are some points that I would like to stress.
Revision:
Introduction:
Page 2 line 21 :
“Currently, LC and percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) are the main surgical methods for ASC
both of which can confirm ASC during surgery”
Percutaneous cholecystectomy is not a surgical method. It’s an alternative drainage method of
surgery in fragile patients.
Please modify.
The Authors reported the value of nonenhanced CT combined with laboratory examinations in
the diagnosis of acute suppurative cholecystitis. However the reasons for choosing this imaging
method have not been reported. It may be interesting for readers to specify why the authors
choose to perform a nonenhanced CT instead of an enhanced CT.
Please revise accordingly
Results:
Page 7 line 22:
The abbreviation of common bile duct (CBD) has already been mentioned above in the text.
Please insert CBD directly.
In the results the Authors reported that 204 patients are included in the study and are divided
in 2 groups.
However, in the text and in Table1 are reported 138 patients for Group 1 and 63 for Group 2
but the sum appears to be 201.
Please revise and modify text and Table1 accordingly.
Discussion.
Page 11 line 14
“PC is more widely performed than cholecystectomy”
This phrase could be misunderstood.
Laparosacopic cholecystectomy is the gold standard treatment for acute cholecystitis.
However, poor surgical candidates may benefit from gallbladder drainage.
PC is a useful and widely available gallbladder drainage method but it’s an alternative for high-
risk patients in whom urgent surgery is contraindicated, such as elderly, critically ill, or those
with severe comorbidities.
Plese revise this sentence accordingly.
Neverthless, PC-related adverse may occur in up to 25% of the patients.
As reported in two recent reviews on gallbladder drainage (PMID 32523368; PMID
32523368) there are two endoscopic GBD methods: the transmural approach guided by
endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD)
under endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).
Could be usefull for the readers to mention this alternative drainage methods in the manuscript.
Please comment this topic in the discussion including these reviews in the manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02224-x (2022)

Title: Value of nonenhanced CT combined with laboratory examinations in the diagnosis of
acute suppurative cholecystitis treated with percutaneous cholecystostomy : A retrospective
study
Version: 5 Date: 10 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
The Authors revised the manuscript based on my comments.
The paper could be accepted.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02214-z (2022)

Title: The clinical applicability of percutaneous splenic vein stent implantation for pancreatic
portal hypertension
Version: 2 Date: 06 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript was submitted to the BMC Gastroenterology .
The authors insisted “The clinical applicability of percutaneous splenic vein stent implantation
for pancreatic portal hypertension”
Actually, this paper is thought to be worth reading but remains some questions and needs some
revisions.
Indications for stent placement and splenectomy should be explained.
The clinical features of portal hypertension are thrombocytopenia and splenomegaly in addition
to the variceal formation.
In each group, readers want to know Pre- and postoperative changes of platelet count and spleen
volume (before operation, 1 month, 6 months, 1year after operation). Authors have to add two
figures of them.
"The splenic vein pressure was measured.(line 100)"
How did authors decide the indication of stent placement based on splenic vein pressure?
30mmHg? 20mmHg?
Authors have to mention the complications of stent placement.
In discussion section, authors have to mention regarding the comparison  pancreatic portal
hypertension with left-sided portal hypertension after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PMID:
31356273).
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02214-z (2022)

Title: The clinical applicability of percutaneous splenic vein stent implantation for pancreatic
portal hypertension
Version: 2 Date: 11 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
Interest in so-called left-sided portal hypertension will always remain among specialists dealing
with the problems of portal hypertension. The authors present their experience in treating
patients with pancreatic portal hypertension, while presenting the results of a promising
minimally invasive treatment.
This is an interesting study examining a relatively large cohort of patients with pancreatic portal
hypertension. The results are interesting, but some important methodological concerns arise.
1.How were the medical co morbidities of these patients being treated? Were any receiving
propranolol or other medications to reduce portal hypertension and risk of upper gastrointestinal
bleeding?
2.How appropriate is it to include the third (conservative) group to compare treatment results,
especially since in the conservative group the authors treat consequences of pancreatitis, and
in the first two groups the treatment is aimed at treating consequences of splenic vein stenosis/
thrombosis and portal hypertension due to chronic pancreatitis.
3. In the discussion of the study results the authors, comparing different treatment methods of
pancreatic portal hypertension, discussing about the negative sides of conservative therapy and
splenectomy, while there are no data on the disadvantages of splenic vein stenting in pancreatic
portal hypertension, neither own nor from the literature.
4. There are a number of minor errors in syntax and grammar, the authors are encouraged to
have the manuscript revised by an English editor
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02231-y (2022)

Title: Comparison of operative outcomes between monopolar and bipolar coagulation in
hepatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis in a single center
Version: 1 Date: 25 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
Muraki et al. reported on the operative outcomes after monopolar or bipolar coagulation during
hepatectomy. All in all, the design of the manuscript is well-thought-out and written. However,
I have several concerns I like the authors to address:
1. Arguably, the choice of the hemostatic coagulation and cutting devices may have a direct
impact on the postoperative course - much like the choice between monopolar or bipolar
coagulation. Yet the authors fail to include this crucial information in the manuscript. Please
add these data to the manuscript. If the difference between monopolar and bipolar groups is
significant, hemostatic coagulation devices should be included as a parameter of propensity
score matching.
2.  Ascites is not defined in the methods section. Please revise.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02231-y (2022)

Title: Comparison of operative outcomes between monopolar and bipolar coagulation in
hepatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis in a single center
Version: 1 Date: 30 Jan 2022
Reviewer:  Fabio Melandro
Reviewer's report:
In this OA, the authors compared the outcome of hepatic resection performed by monopolar
and bipolar device, 104 patients using bipolar and 160 monopolar coagulation. To balance the
difference between two groups the authors opted to build PSM.
I have some concerns:
- I suggest to compare cases in the same period. I think that two eras of comparation are very
different in term of surgical management of hepatic cancer
- it is not clear the correlation between device and some complication. In particular:
is not clear as authors explain the correlation between device and ascites. In the discussion the
authors' purpose is not consistent
- I think that difference from 0 to 8,6 in CCI reported as total complication  is not a relevant
information in this paper
-the last aspect not clear in the discussion is the correlation between device and abdominal
infection and indeed the definition of abdominal infection.
For this manuscript I suggest major revision.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02231-y (2022)

Title: Comparison of operative outcomes between monopolar and bipolar coagulation in
hepatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis in a single center
Version: 1 Date: 30 Jan 2022
Reviewer:  Chikato Koga
Reviewer's report:
This paper is well written and well argued. The subject of the work is very interesting .
In my opinion, the paper can be edited after minor corrections.
I ask you for some information.
I would like to know the information on the presence or absence of drain insert  and liver fibrosis
status and how to evaluate postoperative ascites.
I’m  wondering if  you have changed the device or not based on the results of this study.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02231-y (2022)

Title: Comparison of operative outcomes between monopolar and bipolar coagulation in
hepatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis in a single center
Version: 1 Date: 01 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, thank you for submitting "Comparison of operative outcomes between monopolar
and bipolar coagulation in hepatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis in a single center".
The paper shows an interesting analysis on a very debated issue.
Introduction, methods and results are well written, I have to underline it should be better if the
number of patients or institutions  would be wider. However the novelty of the type of study
justifies the publication of the paper.
Please extend the discussion citing properly "Rocca A, Cipriani F,  et al..The Italian Consensus
on minimally invasive simultaneous resections for synchronous liver metastasis and primary
colorectal cancer: A Delphi methodology. Updates Surg. 2021 Aug;73(4):1247-1265. doi:
10.1007/s13304-021-01100-9. Epub 2021 Jun 5. PMID: 34089501.
Takahashi H et al (2018) A new technique for hepatic parenchymal transection using an
articulating bipolar 5 cm radiofrequency device: results from the first 100 procedures. HPB
20(9):829–833
Yamamoto T et al (2017) Secure, low-cost technique for laparoscopic hepatic resection using
the crush-clamp method with a bipolar sealer. Asian J Endosc Surg 10(1):96–99
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02231-y (2022)

Title: Comparison of operative outcomes between monopolar and bipolar coagulation in
hepatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis in a single center
Version: 3 Date: 08 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Chikato Koga
Reviewer's report:
I think that it is well described in response to the points from each reviewer.
I was interested in the fact that there was no difference between the two groups in Grade>3
ascites, although the incidence rate of ascites was higher in the monopolar group.
The criteria of drain removal and  the duration of the intraabdominal drainage  are not stated.
I think that the incidence rates of ascites may change depending on the duration of the
intraabdominal drainage.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02231-y (2022)

Title: Comparison of operative outcomes between monopolar and bipolar coagulation in
hepatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis in a single center
Version: 4 Date: 17 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Chikato Koga
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author, thank you for your revision.  No further comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02222-z (2022)

Title: Empirically Derived Dietary Pattern and Odds of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Diseases in
Overweight and Obese Adults: A case-control study
Version: 0 Date: 02 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you very much for submitting this paper to BMC Gastroenterology. Exploring the impact
of diet on NAFLD is crucial. I have few comments for the authors.
- as a convenience sampling method has been used for selecting the patients of this study and
no consecutive patients were considered, it should be highlighted that there might be  selection
biases impacting the analysis.
- Among the eligibility criteria, participants with BMI> 25 were excluded - was it ethnicity-
adjusted cut off? Moreover, do you have any data on lean NAFLD? quality of diet may be
particularly relevant for this subgroup of patients.
- why were patients with Cardiovascular disease excluded from the study?
- please specify what "special diets" are
- it is not clear whether those in the control group had NAFLD or not - if NAFLD is based on
US, so they may have not been NAFLD - why are they followed-up in liver clinic then?
- Finally, as fibrosis is the main predictor factor for these patients, is there any correlation with
non invasive markers of fibrosis such as FIB-4 or LSM?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02222-z (2022)

Title: Empirically Derived Dietary Pattern and Odds of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Diseases in
Overweight and Obese Adults: A case-control study
Version: 0 Date: 17 Dec 2021
Reviewer:  Alberto Rubén Osella
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting paper but it is necessary a thorough revision.
The paper needs an intensive editing by a native English speaker
Page 3, L48. What does developed stages mean?
Page 4, L81-82. Please state a clear objective; (...the aim of this study was to estimate the
association between DP and NAFLD odds in "what type of persons", during (temporal window)
in Iran
Page 5, L92. Please define "frequent visits"
Page 5, L97-104. It's very confusing
Page 5, L 106. What abdominal ultrasound device was used?
P 5, L108-113. Please describe what parameters have been used to perform NAFLD diagnosis
and check accurately sentence 108 to 112.
Pages 6-7, L143-151.  How were fat and muscle mass measured?
Statistical Analyses
Please state a  "Temporal order": Descriptive statistics; Factor Analysis (dietary patterns (the
exposure)) and multivariable logistic regression (and, consequently, describe the results in the
same way: this will help readability)
Page 8, L192. What do mean changes of TC and HDL-c between the two groups mean?
Has the  Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy been used?
Why only loads equal or greater than 0.30 are reported? Please justify
Please define why some variables were used to adjust for. Is there a  meaningful  covariate
pattern?
I find Abstract, Introduction and Discussion very interesting as well as the set of descriptive
tables.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02222-z (2022)

Title: Empirically Derived Dietary Pattern and Odds of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Diseases in
Overweight and Obese Adults: A case-control study
Version: 3 Date: 17 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Alberto Rubén Osella
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed all issues raised by me. However, several typos need attention.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02225-w (2022)

Title: Comparative effectiveness of second-line biological therapies for ulcerative colitis and
Crohn’s disease in patients with prior failure of anti-tumour necrosis factor treatment
Version: 4 Date: 25 Nov 2021
Reviewer's report:
This is a single-centre retrospective study that compared the efficacy of second-line vedolizumab
and tofacitinib in ulcerative colitis and second-line vedolizumab and ustekinumab in Crohn’s
disease (following anti-TNF failure). In total, 94 patients were evaluated (50 in UC population
and 44 in CD population). The authors concluded that after prior anti-TNF failure, vedolizumab
and tofacitinib in UC and vedolizumab and ustekinumab in CD patients were similar in terms
of clinical efficacy. The article is well written and comprehensive, and understanding the role
of second-line therapy is an increasingly important area of IBD research.
Major comments:
• The sample size is small in each group [for UC: 37 patients vs 13 patients in vedolizumab
and tofacitinib groups respectively, for CD:28 patients vs 16 patients in vedolizumab and
ustekinumab groups respectively] which limits the statistical analysis and increases the chance
of a type 2 error
• In the CD population, it appears the vedolizumab group has a more severe phenotype (based
on Montreal classification, CDAI and lower albumin levels) which would impact on the results.
This should at least be discussed in the limitations.
• Lack of data on biochemical (CRP, faecal calprotectin) and endoscopic information limit the
results given these are current treatment endpoints in managing IBD
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02225-w (2022)

Title: Comparative effectiveness of second-line biological therapies for ulcerative colitis and
Crohn’s disease in patients with prior failure of anti-tumour necrosis factor treatment
Version: 4 Date: 22 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
I think the article is clinically relevant, but, as you mention, the sample size is  small. Although
retrospective, well done and structured. Please correct "pruritis" on page 8, second parragraph.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02225-w (2022)

Title: Comparative effectiveness of second-line biological therapies for ulcerative colitis and
Crohn’s disease in patients with prior failure of anti-tumour necrosis factor treatment
Version: 7 Date: 11 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
The responses to revision comments are reasonable and the limitations of this study are
acknowledged. The inclusion of a formal statistician does help. The results are relevant in
the current management of IBD given the growing number of medications available, and
comparison studies are useful for clinical practice.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02203-2 (2022)

Title: MiR-1-3p targets CENPF to repress tumor-relevant functions of gastric cancer cells
Version: 0 Date: 27 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
1) In the introduction section, the authors should describe the CENPF role in cancer development
in more detail. In addition, the role of miR-1 was described earlier by other groups, I dont see
it introduced in this part nor discussed in the discussion section. What is the true novelty of
the present study? Furthermore, it is not clear how the authors selected CENPF-miR-1 axis
for further analysis, as the statistical analysis which was performed as described in the method
section 1.1 would lead to dozen potential miRNA-gene interactions. Please describe in more
detail.
2) What is the difference between basic characteristics of cell lines selected in the present study,
and why the authors selected only one cell line for further biological analyses? The experiments
performed in all selected cell lines would improve greatly the conclusions.
3) What is the novelty of the results presented in section 2.2. Same conclusions were shown
previously (PMID: 25874496).
4) The discussion section should be improved in more detail as described above.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02203-2 (2022)

Title: MiR-1-3p targets CENPF to repress tumor-relevant functions of gastric cancer cells
Version: 0 Date: 03 Oct 2021
Reviewer:  Nijiro Nohata
Reviewer's report:
The results of the authors' analysis, namely that miR-1-3p plays a tumor suppressor role in
gastric cancer by negatively regulating oncogenic CENPF, are generally reliable and convincing.
However, such analysis and findings have already been demonstrated in many cancer types,
and are not particularly new or interesting molecular mechanisms. I would like to request the
following minor revisions to make this analysis more thoughtful.
1) Describe the expression status and role of miR-1-5p in gastric cancer.
2) Describe the miRNAs other than miR-1-3p that are regulated by CENPF, including other
carcinomas.
3) Provide additional analysis or insight into the genetic or epigenetic causes of decreased
expression of miR-1-3p or increased expression of CENPF in gastric cancer.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02203-2 (2022)

Title: MiR-1-3p targets CENPF to repress tumor-relevant functions of gastric cancer cells
Version: 2 Date: 01 Feb 2022
Reviewer:  Nijiro Nohata
Reviewer's report:
Frankly, I cannot see anything novel in the findings of this study on miRNAs and target gene
mechanisms, but I judge that the authors' revisions are responsive to the reviewers' comments
and have improved the quality of the article for publication in this journal.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02229-6 (2022)

Title: Lack of relationship between PROX1 expression and clinicopathological parameters and
prognosis in gastric cancer patients: a meta-analysis and TCGA analysis
Version: 1 Date: 04 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors have done a great deal about the roles of PROX1 in gastric cancer, by using Multiple
common databases (TCGA/GTEx) and meta-analysis. However, we can not understand the
clinical implications of this study.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02229-6 (2022)

Title: Lack of relationship between PROX1 expression and clinicopathological parameters and
prognosis in gastric cancer patients: a meta-analysis and TCGA analysis
Version: 4 Date: 13 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your hard efforts in improving this manuscript. I have greatly enjoyed the
opportunity to re-review it.
Minor comments:
- On page 4, please change "adjuvant" to the correct terminology "neoadjuvant" to refer to
treatment given before surgery.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02210-3 (2022)

Title: Comparison of the outcomes between sorafenib and lenvatinib as the first-line systemic
treatment for HBV-associated hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis
Version: 2 Date: 17 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
This study provides real-world evidence indicating that the difference including OS, PFS, TTP
and response between sorafenib and lenvatinib in patients with HBV-HCC using PSM analysis.
This is an interesting issue but there are several issues should be clarified and corrected before
further processing:
1. The enrolled patients were all HBV carrier. Since the virus itself is an important risk factor
associated with outcome, authors should offer the information that how many patients received
antiviral therapy and the viral status before TKI treatment start.
2. The authors should offer comparative tables including baseline difference between two groups
before matching and why some patients could receive subsequent anti-HCC treatment as well
as what kinds of therapy did they receive.
3. In the part of “OS and its predictors”, please check the P-value of EHM, PVT, biliary invasion
and kind of TKI in the univariate analysis. They all showed P-value > 0.05 in the table 4 that
were not comparable in the text.
4. Why higher AST level instead of ALT is associated with poor OS ?
5. In page 14, please attach the reference for “ subgroup analysis for OS in the REFLECT
international phase 3 trial.”
6. Please offer the latest edition for reference 1 about current distribution of HBV population
in different regions.
7. Please offer English edition for reference 18.
8. Please check the P-value of PFS between two TKI (p=0.134) since it’s not comparable in the
table 5 (p=0.138).
9. Could the authors give an adequate explanation why these two TKIs showed different efficacy
in different age and baseline AFP level ?
10. I strongly suggest this manuscript needs English editing before being published.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02210-3 (2022)

Title: Comparison of the outcomes between sorafenib and lenvatinib as the first-line systemic
treatment for HBV-associated hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis
Version: 2 Date: 24 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
This retrospective single-center study used PMS to compare sorafenib and lenvatinib in the first-
line treatment of HBV-related HCC, which showed comparable OS and PFS, but longer TTP
and better tumor response with lenvatinib treatment.
Several points I raised for the authors.
Major:
1. This study focused on HBV-HCC, but the repeat of similar result makes it lack novelty.
There are already two real-world data published for the comparison of sorafenib and lenvatinib
(Reference 22 and 23 in this manuscript). Casadei-Gardini et. al. balanced clinical features by
using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) methodology, which enrolled more
patients and showed similar results as REFLECT study, including HBV-HCC in subgroup
analysis (Reference 23).
2. Lenvatinib demonstrated higher ORR and longer PFS but similar OS. There is not much data
to explain this finding. The authors may be able to analyze and explain why from their real-
world data.
3. In Discussion Section 1-3, the author repeatedly mentioned the data in the Result Section
that is redundant. In other part of Discussion, the author only compared the data between this
study and other studies with few discussions, which makes these sections lacking in elaboration.
Generally, the Discussion Section should be re-written with a more scientific way.
4. In Discussion Section 9, the authors stated that “These observations may help in the selection
of sorafenib or lenvatinib as a first-line systemic treatment for patients with uHCC associated
with HBV infection” according to the subgroup analysis finding “Lenvatinib was preferred for
patients # 60 years of age and AFP > 200 ng/mL for PFS, and sorafenib was preferred in patients
> 60 years of age, AFP # 200 ng/mL, and tumor size # 5 cm for OS”. In fact, it is not convincing
using the subgroup analysis data to make such conclusion.
5. The authors did the multivariant analysis for OS with their matched cohort. This analysis
seems to be biased. They should consider used their un-matched cohort to do this analysis.
Minor:
1. Table 3 showed “Previous and post anti-HCC treatment”. It is not clear what it means.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02210-3 (2022)

Title: Comparison of the outcomes between sorafenib and lenvatinib as the first-line systemic
treatment for HBV-associated hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis
Version: 5 Date: 03 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
Authors had answered all the question and I had no further comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02210-3 (2022)

Title: Comparison of the outcomes between sorafenib and lenvatinib as the first-line systemic
treatment for HBV-associated hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis
Version: 6 Date: 05 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Authors have already revised their paper according to the comments from editor and reviewers.
I think they did a great job. I have no more comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02232-x (2022)

Title: Long-term outcomes of refractory esophageal strictures after endoscopic submucosal
dissection of superficial esophageal neoplasms
Version: 2 Date: 21 Nov 2021
Reviewer's report:
General comments:
This study showed the natural history of refractory esophageal strictures (RES) after endoscopic
submucosal dissection (ESD) of superficial esophageal neoplasms. An average of more than
10 dilatations finally resulted in endoscopic therapy success in 60% of cases. Once a RES had
occurred, prophylactic steroid therapy could not reduce the frequency of dilations or change the
long-term outcomes. Although this study is informative, it has several points that require further
attention as described below.
Major and specific comments:
1. Of the total number of ESD cases for superficial esophageal neoplasms, how many had large
circumferential resections and what percentage of them resulted in RES? What kind of stenosis
prevention measures were taken in each case? Please show the flow chart of this study because
we cannot understand.
2. It would be misleading to show only that prophylactic steroid medication had no effect on
completed RES. Please show the role of prophylactic steroid medication played in reducing the
incidence of RES. In which cases was prophylactic oral steroids chosen, and in what proportion
of these cases did RES occur?
3. The analysis method in Table 1 is not clear. What does the note " &: P indicates a significant
relationship between characteristics of patients and endoscopic therapy in univariate analysis."
in table1 mean? Did the authors compare endoscopic therapy successes and failures? Or did
the authors perform a logistic regression analysis with each factor as an explanatory variable
with the objective variable being endoscopic therapy success? Please show the percentage of
endoscopic therapy successes and failures and their characteristics.
4. Why is there a longer period of time without dysphagia in the balloon dilation alone group
compared to the steroid prophylaxis group? Isn't there a strong selection bias in favor of steroid
prophylaxis in patients at high risk for RES? The authors should discuss this point.
5. Why did the elderly and female patients have shorter dysphagia-free periods compared with
young and male patients? What mechanism could have influenced this result? Please discuss
the reasons as possible.
6. In table 3, did the authors perform the multivariate analysis using the 5 risk factors presented
as explanatory variables? 5 explanatory variables might be a bit overfitting for 30 cases with
endoscopic therapy successes as the event. Please state this in the limitations.
7. Before using RES as an abbreviation, please provide the definition and full spelling of RES
first.
8. In the definition section, provide a definition for each of the dysphagia scores.
9. Please show the R0 resection rate for these RES cases. Furthermore, please show that the
residual recurrence was not involved in these RES cases.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02232-x (2022)

Title: Long-term outcomes of refractory esophageal strictures after endoscopic submucosal
dissection of superficial esophageal neoplasms
Version: 2 Date: 22 Nov 2021
Reviewer's report:
To the author
This manuscript was evaluated the risk factor of the stricture after extensive ESD of esophageal
neoplasia. Stricture after extensive ESD is important factor for esophageal ESD. However, there
are some concerns before publication from BMC gastroenterology.
1. Author described “prospectively collected the date of 853 lesions in 686 patients” in the
method section. However, this study is retrospective study and author should explain the
inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria more precisely in the method section.
2. Author should submit the flowchart of this study.
3. Author include the patients of various treatment for the esophageal stricture such as dilatation,
bougie and stent. However, esophageal stenting is completely different treatment. Author should
exclude the patients with the stenting treatment. Or author should state the treatment method of
the stenting in detail.
4. Author should explain RESs in the abstract.
5. Oral intake and local injection is controversial so author should discuss this point.
6. Yamaguchi et al reported the utility of oral prednisolone for esophageal stricture after
extensive ESD in gastrointestinal endoscopy (Yamaguchi N et al. Gastrointest Endosc 2011. 73:
1115-1121.) Author should cite this report.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02232-x (2022)

Title: Long-term outcomes of refractory esophageal strictures after endoscopic submucosal
dissection of superficial esophageal neoplasms
Version: 4 Date: 16 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
To the author
Thank you for the opportunity of the review of the revised manuscript. I carefully read the revised
manuscript, and I mostly agreed with the revision.
However, I have one question before publication.
1. Author made new sentence in the results section as below “297 patients underwent 50-75%
circumferential###”. This evaluation is subjective. Author should state how to evaluate the
circumference of the resected area.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02232-x (2022)

Title: Long-term outcomes of refractory esophageal strictures after endoscopic submucosal
dissection of superficial esophageal neoplasms
Version: 5 Date: 05 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
General comments:
The manuscript was well revised, however it requires some minor revisions yet. Please provide
further attention as described below.
Minor and specific comments:
1. “Refractory esophageal strictures (RESs)” was described at the second time at
BACKGROUND section, line 83, page 4. Please describe the abbreviation (RESs) only at this
point.
2. The authors described that “Propensity score matching was used to minimize lesion size bias.”
at line 265-266, page 10. What factors were used as adjustment factors to create the propensity
score? Please add the description at “Statistical analysis” section. Furthermore, how many cases
were there at each group after matching? Please provide the detail before and after matching.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02232-x (2022)

Title: Long-term outcomes of refractory esophageal strictures after endoscopic submucosal
dissection of superficial esophageal neoplasms
Version: 6 Date: 09 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
General comments:
The manuscript was well revised, however it requires some minor revisions yet. Please provide
further attention as described below.
Minor and specific comments:
1. The authors described that “Propensity score matching was used to minimize lesion size bias,
with 1:1 matching, in the patients with steroid and dilation alone.” at line 168-169, page 7.
Did it mean that there was only one factor (lesion size) that create the propensity score? If the
authors would like to adjust for lesion size bias only, we consider the multivariate regression
analysis would be more appropriate.
Or, did the authors create the propensity score with multiple factors? If so, indicate each factor.
2. The authors described that “After adjusting influence on the two groups, the dysphasia-free
period of steroid group was 2.9 months, and the dilation alone group was 3.1 months.” at line
232-234, page 9.
Was there a significant difference the dysphasia-free period between the two? Please indicate
the P value at this point.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02227-8 (2022)

Title: Development and Validation of Standard and Real Patient Gallstone Library Using
Fourier Transform Infra-Red Spectroscopy
Version: 0 Date: 29 Nov 2021
Reviewer's report:
1. In the Background section, explain why FT-IR can be used in the determination of Gallstones;
based on reference [9] further explain what molecules/components contained in a Gallstone
specimen can be detected by FT-IR. Add an example of other studies conducting FT-IR
studies for identification of disease or similar components/molecules with Gallstone specimens
(Cholesterol, Calcium , Bilirubin, Bile Salt).
2. In Method "Phase II: ...........Thermo Scientific™ QCheck™ algorithm, embedded within the
OMNIC™ software, was used to identify the unique spectral fingerprint of the patient samples
to match with known, standard material. Matching of >75% was taken as acceptable...." -->
please put reference(s) which said 75% is acceptable or why the value is taken.
3. For next research, a  PLSR calibration method can be developed for  rapid detection of
gallstones’ compositions  analysis.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02227-8 (2022)

Title: Development and Validation of Standard and Real Patient Gallstone Library Using
Fourier Transform Infra-Red Spectroscopy
Version: 0 Date: 11 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
Please review the fundamentals of infrared spectroscopy.  The infrared spectrum of a compound
is achieved by ratioing  the infrared spectrum of the  sample by the spectrum of the clean ATR
crystal.
CaCl2 does not have  infrared absorptions, what is shown is a spectrum of an impurity.
It is also not the spectrum of CaCO3
The % analysis is incorrect