JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03707-3 (2025)

Title: Comparing the bowel cleansing efficacy between sodium picosulfate vs. 2L polyethylene
glycol electrolyte lavage solution for colonoscopy: A prospective observational study
Version: 6 Date: 08 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Abstract
"Secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate, adverse reactions, and patient compliance."
missing  BBPS Total and segment scores
Background
"thereby achieving superior bowel preparation with minimal gastrointestinal reactions " I would
remove this since it just repeats what you say later.
"In addition, the unique orange flavour of PICO is easily accepted by the patients." I would
eliminate this.,
Methods
Lines 123 to 125  "a packet of  A (Bor C)" should be "packet A" etc.
"All patients will be asked " were asked
"and the adequate bowel cleansing rate referred to the proportion of patients with all three
segments scoring # 2, compared to the total number of patients " this is probably not needed.
Results
"And there was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of low-risk populations
between the PICO and 2L PEG-ELS groups (46.0% vs. 45.0%, P=0.595). " I would eliminate
this. If you use it, you need to explain what low-risk populations are (low-risk patients for an
inadequate preparation).
Discussion
"Although the adequate bowel cleaning rate showed no significant difference between the two
groups, the PICO group achieved a better performance in the BBPS scores of the total[(6.90 ±
1.19) vs. (6.81 ± 1.14), P=0.016] and the right colon[(2.15 ± 0.53) vs. (2.11 ± 0.51), P=0.005]. "
Repetitive and you are not using statistically significant.
Suggest:
" the PICO group  had statistically significantly better BBPS total scores (6.90 ± 1.19) vs. (6.81
± 1.14), P=0.016] and the  right segment scores[(2.15 ± 0.53) vs. (2.11 ± 0.51), P=0.005]."
You need to write out the first reference to ESGE "European Society of Gastrointestinal
Endoscopy "
Line 256 - what do yo mean by "a better trend " was it statistically significant? If not you should
not include it or state it was a non statistically significant finding but supported your findings.
Figure 1 - I would list
Failure to complete colonoscopy (give #)
Absence of BBPS scores (give #)
Previous Colon Resection (give #).
How is 32 patients were excluded due to inclompete information different than missing BBPS?
Maybe you can clarify that.
Table 1
"Recheck" needs to be clarified (? history of adenomatous polyps or cancer)
"Other is a very high number" - what is this? Usually other is a small number.
Table 2
Final Comment: Your paper has come a long way since the first draft and you should be proud
of its evolution.
I have recommended it be accepted but I would make the minor changes above (mostly to shorten
it) but also to clarify some areas.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03743-z (2025)

Title: Immunological biomarkers at birth and later risk of celiac disease
Version: 1 Date: 13 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
A very interesting and well written manuscript. Clear and transparent data.
I wonder the impact the limited data on the comparators has on the data outcomes. It is well
documented that many children with CD go undiagnosed or are diagnosed later in life and we are
unaware if these children also suffer from other immune-mediated conditions that could impact
results. You have outlined this briefly in the limitations, however, it would be a very interesting
consideration for future studies.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03743-z (2025)

Title: Immunological biomarkers at birth and later risk of celiac disease
Version: 1 Date: 22 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Ulnes et al have tested some novel assays to measure immune subsets with a focus on total T
cells and Bcells from biobanked dried blood spots. They have access to a large historical biobank
and have information on infants that went on to develop CeD. They then determined there was
no correlation between the immune subsets and CeD vs controls. This has some novelty as such
assays have not been tested in CeD cohorts. The ability to test for disease risk on dried blood
spots at birth is also of interest. Some weaknesses in that the control cohorts are less characterized
than the CeD cohort. I suggest some amendments to the article.
1) I felt that for an article submitted to a Gastroenterology journal there may be a need for
additional background on the methods used. Perhaps additional description around the literature
where the methods have been compared to other more standard methods such as flow cytometry?
For example have approximate frequencies measured in these assays been compared to a
TruCOUNT like method? Such methods only require 50uL whole blood. Is there any literature
surrounding the robustness of the assay perhaps using older individuals that allow more sampling
to occur? E.g intra-assay variation, inter-assay variation? Background section would benefit
from a little extra background on the actual differences observed in other disease settings and
whether these TRECs and KRECs, epigenetic estimates were compared to other assays within
these other studies. Prefer some of this detail to be in the main text rather than the supplementary
2) The authors mention the limitation of not having data on the controls but there is no
explanation why no questionnaire data was available for this group. It would be useful for this
to be explained.
3) Were there any correlations between a “higher” or “lower” count in the TREC and T cells
within the epigenetic counts? Or KREC and B cells within the same individuals?
4) Some of the literature in the discussion needs to be more explicit whether this refers to CeD
or other cohorts.
5) Expansion of the detail in the figure legend for figure S2 would be beneficial.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03743-z (2025)

Title: Immunological biomarkers at birth and later risk of celiac disease
Version: 2 Date: 26 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
We appreciate the opportunity to revise the manuscript and value the scientific feedback during
the review process. We found that the manuscript is well-articulated and makes a valuable
contribution to the field of celiac disease
The manuscript was well-designed and, with minor changes, ready for publication.    We need
to comment on the author on the following points;
1. Would the article's title fit the study's content?
2. Citations in the article lack consistency.
3. Were immunological studies from DBS previously accredited and eligible for such a study?
How old is the DBS you used in the study?
4. What are your findings concerning the plasma lipid and phospholipid profile mentioned? How
is this relevant to your topic of study? P12 L278-279.
5. How does your last word in the conclusion align with your study aims?
6. What is your recommendation from this study?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03761-x (2025)

Title: Whether preoperative biliary drainage leads to better patient outcomes of
pancreaticoduodenectomy: A meta-analysis and systematic review
Version: 1 Date: 11 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Andrej Nikov
Reviewer's report:
From the methodology of the literature review, it is neither clear nor reproducible on what basis
924 studies were excluded based on their title and/or abstract. During my search of the PubMed
and Web of Science databases, I found over 10 retrospective studies that met the inclusion
criteria but were not included in the meta-analysis. Additionally, the meta-analysis did not
include the randomized controlled trial by van der Gaag, published in NEJM in 2010, which is
considered a fundamental piece of evidence demonstrating the inferiority of preoperative biliary
drainage and falls within the timeframe analyzed by the meta-analysis.
Due to the apparently incomplete review of the published literature available in the selected
databases, the conducted meta-analysis cannot be deemed interpretable. These shortcomings
cannot be addressed through any revisions, and I recommend the manuscript to be rejected.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03761-x (2025)

Title: Whether preoperative biliary drainage leads to better patient outcomes of
pancreaticoduodenectomy: A meta-analysis and systematic review
Version: 1 Date: 28 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for coming out with such an important issue in the management of preoperative
biliary drainage before pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Please kindly go through the corrections made in the manuscript which has been uploaded.
You need to make the grammatical and language corrections.
All the procedure specific complications following pancreaticoduodenectomy has been defined
and graded by International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). It is better to use the
term bile leak rather than biliary fistula.
Which definition of postoperative pancreatic fistula was considered 2005 or 2016 ISGPS
definition.
All patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy but one case has been quoted as hilar
cholangiocarcinoma.
When were the patients operated after preoperative biliary drainage? It would be great if the
optimum time to operate after PBD could also be obtained from this study
Which modality of PBD is better: ERCP vs PTBD; and in ERCP: ENBD vs plastic stent vs
SEMS.
Best wishes
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03761-x (2025)

Title: Whether preoperative biliary drainage leads to better patient outcomes of
pancreaticoduodenectomy: A meta-analysis and systematic review
Version: 2 Date: 17 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you.
1. This study has not looked into the time interval between the PBD and PD. So the conclusion
regarding the timing of surgery after PBD cannot be made.
2. Please explain the following statement written in discussion. "The most direct cause of
obstructive jaundice is hyperbilirubinemia, which is closely related to biliary hypertension and
chronic consumption of malignant tumors"
3.It is important to look into the type of preoperative biliary drainage. This statement  "the
destruction of the barrier function of the sphincter of Oddi by PBD operation" in discussion will
only be true for endoscopic drainage and not for percutaneous transhepatic drainage.
4.PBD is a procedure not an operation. Please be consistent in mentioning PBD as an invasive
procedure and not an operation.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03761-x (2025)

Title: Whether preoperative biliary drainage leads to better patient outcomes of
pancreaticoduodenectomy: A meta-analysis and systematic review
Version: 2 Date: 17 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Omar J. Shah
Reviewer's report:
The authors have incorporated the changes in the   paper. The paper  looks much better .And
as such needs to be accepted for publication
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03749-7 (2025)

Title: Clinical value of systemic immunoinflammatory index in predicting recurrence and
metastasis in patients with primary liver cancer
Version: 2 Date: 07 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is an easy-to-understand paper regarding the Clinical value of systemic
immunoinflammatory index in predicting recurrence and metastasis in patients with primary
liver cancer. The authors have generally performed appropriate analyses.
There is some concern about this paper.
1. In “General Information”, Exclusion criteria, what is the mean of " (4) Patients with surgical
margins < 1cm or combined with other organ metastases such as the lungs and brain". This
seems to repeat with Inclusion criteria: (3) Preoperative imaging examination showed that the
tumor had no distant metastasis and lymph nodes metastasis.
2. Recurrence and metastasis are two different concepts. The definitions of “recurrence and
metastasis” used as the endpoint in this article are unclear. It is recommended that they be
redefined or named.
3. In Table 1, the “tumor capsule” is divided into “yes” and “no,” which does not seem to reflect
its detailed information. It is recommended that it be classified as “complete,”” incomplete,”
and “absence.”
4. How were recurrence and metastasis assessed, and what specific cases of recurrence and
metastasis were observed? Detailed information on recurrence and metastasis events should be
included in the results section.
5. The endpoint events observed in this study are time-dependent, making the use of a logistic
regression model less appropriate. It is recommended to use a Cox proportional hazards
regression model for analysis and to supplement the results with Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03749-7 (2025)

Title: Clinical value of systemic immunoinflammatory index in predicting recurrence and
metastasis in patients with primary liver cancer
Version: 2 Date: 10 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
The clinical value of SII in predicting recurrence and metastasis in 186 patients with primary
liver cancer treated by TACE was discussed. Several aspects require further clarification and
discussion to enhance the manuscript’s scientific rigor.
1. In the part of inclusion criteria, the author selected 186 patients with primary liver cancer,
and focused on the clinical significance of the AFP level of patients. However, we know that
the significance of AFP for hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is
different. Therefore, whether it is appropriate to analyze the relationship between AFP level and
recurrence and metastasis of patients with primary liver cancer.
2. Why did the selected 186 patients not choose surgical treatment, and why did not they use
immunotherapy and targeted therapy? Surgical treatment, immune therapy and targeted therapy
will have a great impact on SII, which needs to be accurately analyzed and compared.
3. In (1) and (4) of the exclusion criteria, posterior pathology and surgical margins are mentioned,
but the study does not mention that the selected patients underwent surgery.
4.According to the guidelines, patients with primary liver cancer may have multiple SII index
and AFP levels reviewed during the 2-year follow-up period. In Table 4 and Table 5, how did
the author statistically analyze SII index and AFP levels.
5.The article repeatedly mentioned tumor recurrence after TACE, but did not accurately evaluate
the effect of TACE in patients.
6.When analyzing the results of Table 4, the article mentioned that "AFP levels were independent
risk factors affecting the recurrence and metabolism of patients with primary liver cancer
(p<0.05)" However, we all know that elevated AFP may be the result of tumor recurrence and
metastasis, not necessarily independent risk factors affecting the recurrence and metastasis. Is
this conclusion appropriate.
7.The discussion part should focus on the analysis of the feasibility and limitations of SII as a
predictor.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03749-7 (2025)

Title: Clinical value of systemic immunoinflammatory index in predicting recurrence and
metastasis in patients with primary liver cancer
Version: 3 Date: 17 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
My main concerns have been addressed by the authors and appropriate changes. For me, the
amendments have improved the manuscript but there are still analysis errors.
1. This study mainly explored the clinical value of the systemic immunoinflammatory index
(SII) in predicting recurrence and metastasis in patients with primary liver cancer. Therefore, in
the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, the SII of optimal cut-off value based on ROC should be
divided into high and low groups, and the recurrence rate and metastasis rate as the endpoint of
the two groups should be compared.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03760-y (2025)

Title: Readmission of patients with hypertriglyceridemia-induced acute pancreatitis: A
prospective cohort study
Version: 2 Date: 26 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
It is a decent prospective study
The following  suggestions are offered for the manuscript:
1. STROBE guidelines to be followed and the same be mentioned in the methods section
2. The following may be discussed and referenced to improve upon the  discussion:
a.  Kichloo A, El-Amir Z, Aucar M, Dahiya DS, Al-Haddad M, Pisipati S, Beiz H,
Singh G, Gandhi D, Singh J, Pathappillil P, Mohideen H, Shaka H. Clinical Outcomes and
Predictors of Thirty-Day Readmissions of Hypertriglyceridemia-Induced Acute Pancreatitis.
Gastroenterology Res. 2022 Feb;15(1):19-25. doi: 10.14740/gr1484. Epub 2022 Jan 10. PMID:
35369677; PMCID: PMC8913020.
b. Reiche WS, Walters RW. Trends and Outcomes of US Hypertriglyceridemia-Induced Acute
Pancreatitis Hospitalizations in Hispanic Americans: Epidemiology from 2016 to 2020. J Racial
Ethn Health Disparities. 2024 Sep 9. doi: 10.1007/s40615-024-02171-1. Epub ahead of print.
PMID: 39251499.
c. Bogan BD, McGuire SP, Maatman TK. Readmission in acute pancreatitis: Etiology, risk
factors, and opportunities for improvement. Surg Open Sci. 2022 Nov 7;10:232-237. doi:
10.1016/j.sopen.2022.10.010. PMID: 36389270; PMCID: PMC9661379.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03760-y (2025)

Title: Readmission of patients with hypertriglyceridemia-induced acute pancreatitis: A
prospective cohort study
Version: 2 Date: 26 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
I have read the manuscript and found it very interesting. I suggest accepting it after addressing
the following minor corrections:
1) The Kaplan–Meier survival curve should include the units used on both the X-axis and Y-
axis (e.g., months). The figures must be self-explanatory.
2) How was the cutoff point in the ROC curve calculated? This should be described in the
statistical analysis section.
3) I suggest including the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the area under the curve (AUC) of
the ROC curve.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03760-y (2025)

Title: Readmission of patients with hypertriglyceridemia-induced acute pancreatitis: A
prospective cohort study
Version: 5 Date: 24 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed the previous corrections adequately. However, I would like to
suggest a few additional minor revisions before the manuscript can be accepted:
1) I suggest summarizing the main demographic characteristics in the first paragraph of the
Results section. For example, including the mean age, the most common sex, and the prevalence
of chronic conditions (e.g., hypertension, diabetes).
2) I recommend dividing Table 1 into two separate tables for better clarity. The first table should
focus on demographic data (e.g., sex, age at diagnosis, body mass index, history of hypertension,
history of diabetes, smoking history, and alcohol intake), while the second table should include
the remaining clinical features (e.g., severity of AP, type of AP, local complications, etc.).
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03725-1 (2025)

Title: Clinicopathological features of early-onset colorectal cancer in Japanese patients: A
single-center retrospective study
Version: 2 Date: 03 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the clinicopathological findings of EoCRC among Japanese patients were
analyzed. It was suggested that EoCRC among Japanese patients tend to occur on the rectum
and is more frequently diagnosed with FIT screening compared to late-onset CRC. Furthermore,
patients with advanced stage were diagnosed by symptoms, indicating the usefulness of FIT
screening in diagnosing EoCRC at an early stage. Although interesting, this article is lack of
some explanations.
1. All patients in this study were Japanese. I would like to know the race of analyzed patients.
2. MSI status should be compared between the groups.
3. The prognosis was compared between the groups. However, the details of the treatment of
CRC in this study are unclear. Were all tumors completely resected? Endoscopic resection or
surgical resection? How were distant metastases treated? What were the details of postoperative
adjuvant chemotherapy? How were overall survival and disease-specific survival calculated?
With insufficient information on these issues, it is not possible to determine whether the study
is appropriate.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03725-1 (2025)

Title: Clinicopathological features of early-onset colorectal cancer in Japanese patients: A
single-center retrospective study
Version: 2 Date: 05 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
This study investigates the clinicopathological characteristics of early-onset colorectal cancer
(EoCRC) in Japanese patients, defined as CRC diagnosed before the age of 50. By
retrospectively analyzing 731 patients diagnosed between 2015 and 2021, the authors found
that EoCRC accounted for 6.3% of cases, with a higher prevalence of rectal cancer compared
to late-onset CRC (45.7% vs. 26.4%, p < 0.001). Additionally, 41.3% of EoCRC patients were
diagnosed through fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening, which was significantly higher
than in late-onset cases (p = 0.032) and associated with earlier stage detection. The study
highlights the potential role of FIT screening in facilitating early diagnosis of EoCRC and
suggests that symptomatic presentation often corresponds with advanced disease stages.
Questions:
1.The age cutoff used to define early-onset and late-onset CRC lacks support from relevant
literature; it is recommended to provide references to justify this choice. Additionally, the large
disparity between the two groups makes it challenging to draw robust conclusions for readers.
2.The statistical analysis of median age differences appears redundant, as the result is predictably
significant.
3.The statistical models employed in this study seem to be univariate. It is suggested to use
multivariate analyses to account for potential confounding factors.
4.Regarding the survival analysis comparison between the two groups, a challenge often faced in
similar studies is the inherent difference in life expectancy between older and younger patients
(though Japan’s high average life expectancy may mitigate this). The comparison of survival
outcomes thus becomes less reliable. Presenting data on deaths due to non-cancer causes could
help address the bias introduced by the older age group.
5.In presenting survival analysis, as all results are negative (albeit approaching significance),
it is still recommended to report specific survival rates at fixed time points (e.g., 3 years or 5
years) for both groups.
6.The study’s conclusions do not provide clinically significant results regarding the treatment of
the two patient groups, likely due to the severe distribution bias in the population. The primary
positive findings relate to the early detection and treatment of CRC. It is recommended to
expand the discussion to include topics such as public health screening, screening compliance,
or health awareness to emphasize the study’s strengths. For example, the higher prevalence of
rectal cancer in younger patients suggests the importance of digital rectal examinations for at-
risk populations.
6.The aesthetic quality of the figures is suboptimal and affects the overall visual appeal. It is
recommended to use programming software or specialized tools to enhance the graphics.
In summary, the study holds potential clinical application value, and its conclusions offer
guidance for public health policy and screening strategies.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03725-1 (2025)

Title: Clinicopathological features of early-onset colorectal cancer in Japanese patients: A
single-center retrospective study
Version: 3 Date: 17 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
I believe the authors' responses have addressed most of my concerns (except for a few issues
that are unavoidable due to the study design and the problems it aims to solve).
However, the quality of the figures remains concerning, particularly regarding pixel resolution,
font issues, and inconsistencies in font capitalization. As a high-level journal, such figure quality
should not be acceptable. I strongly recommend that the authors make the necessary adjustments.
Once these issues are resolved, I suggest that this article be accepted for publication in BMC
Gastroenterology.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03725-1 (2025)

Title: Clinicopathological features of early-onset colorectal cancer in Japanese patients: A
single-center retrospective study
Version: 3 Date: 23 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author,
This manuscript has not been revised appropriately. What is the definition of standard treatment.
The details of the treatment of CRC in this study are still unclear. Were all tumors completely
resected? Endoscopic resection or surgical resection? How were distant metastases treated?
Were all distant metastases resected? With insufficient information on these issues, this
manuscript is not acceptable.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03725-1 (2025)

Title: Clinicopathological features of early-onset colorectal cancer in Japanese patients: A
single-center retrospective study
Version: 4 Date: 29 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
I believe the questions I previously raised regarding this manuscript have been addressed
comprehensively. Therefore, I consider this manuscript to be suitable for acceptance and
publication in this journal.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03725-1 (2025)

Title: Clinicopathological features of early-onset colorectal cancer in Japanese patients: A
single-center retrospective study
Version: 4 Date: 04 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author,
I have reviewed the submitted manuscript and have the following comments and concerns:
1. Authors should clarify the definitions of OS and DFS. Generally, OS was defined as the time
from the date of surgery to the date of death from any cause in the surgical cases. However, in
this study, patients who did not undergo operation were also included.
2. In advanced stage cases, the prognosis of only the resectable group or only the unresectable
group should also be compared.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03736-y (2025)

Title: Endoscopic Resection of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors: Zero Disease-Related Deaths
During a 10-Year Follow-up Period
Version: 2 Date: 02 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Current paper is focused on rectal NETs whose incidence is hugely increasing due to the wide-
spread use of screening colonscopies.
Some minor comments:
- The paper highlights the total lack of recurrence in current series. Please refer to a recent
publication (PMID 39061621) to comment re. possibile differences if existing.
- please improve the introduction section; also consider as references PMID: 35431507 and
PMID: 37213004, the latter one in order to discuss the cut-off suitable for endoscopic resection
- Abstract, resection section: Three lesions were treated using conventional EMR, 29 using
modified EMR, and 19 using endoscopic submucosal resection. Do the authors mean endoscopic
mucosal dissection (ESD)?
- Please edit the language
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03736-y (2025)

Title: Endoscopic Resection of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors: Zero Disease-Related Deaths
During a 10-Year Follow-up Period
Version: 2 Date: 04 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this article. Authors described long-term
prognosis of endoscopically resected rectal NET. There are very few studies that provide data on
the clinical course over a follow-up period of more than 10 years. Therefore,  this manuscript is
valuable and provides meaningful contributions to clinical practice, however, there are several
concerns for publication in its current form.
Major Points
1. The authors limited their analysis to patients who underwent endoscopic resection between
1999 and 2012 and had a follow-up of over 10 years. This approach may have inadvertently
excluded cases with recurrence or death within 10 years, which could underestimate the risk of
rNET. The authors should also include data on cases with shorter follow-up periods.
2. Given the points raised above, the statement in the conclusion, "The endoscopically resected
rNETs did not affect the 10-year survival rate of the patients," is an  overstatement.
3. In this study, only a few non-CR cases underwent additional surgery. The authors should
discuss why the rate of additional surgical resection was lower compared to the rates reported
in clinical practice as cited in the references.
4. Detail pathological findings of the cases that underwent additional resection should be
provided.
5. Were D2-40 and EVG staining performed at the time of treatment, or were they additional
stains conducted specifically for this study?
Minor Points
• The in-text citation numbers and the content of the references do not match. Please ensure that
the correct numbers are assigned to the references.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03736-y (2025)

Title: Endoscopic Resection of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors: Zero Disease-Related Deaths
During a 10-Year Follow-up Period
Version: 2 Date: 09 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
The paper of Hayashi et al represents an original article on the outcomes of endoscopic resection
for rectal NET. The work is well-written, with clear main text, and acceptable methodology.
The main point of strength is the long follow-up recorded, even if the relatively small number
of patients still limits the reproducibility of the data. In addition, a few points should be revised
and corrected.
Introduction:
The definition of rectal NET as benign carcinoid tumors is quite outdated, and they are currently
classified according to the WHO Classification that does not include the term “carcinoid”. I
suggest removing this sentence.
Methods
Clarify if follow-up imaging frequency was consistent among institutions.
Discussion
The recruitment involved a relevant number of Center, with a small number of patients for
each Institute, please address potential biases due to the retrospective design and variability in
follow-up procedures across institutions. Was a Multidiscipilinary team available in the different
hospitals?
Lines 205-206: The authors state “EMR methods include cEMR, mEMR, and ESD”. This is
incorrect as ESD is not a mucosal resection but a submucosal dissection, please correct
Figures
"R0 resection" is not explained in figure legends, please add brief definitions or context in figure
legends to improve clarity.
General comments
Please have the entire manuscript proof-read as there are spelling and language errors in the text.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03736-y (2025)

Title: Endoscopic Resection of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors: Zero Disease-Related Deaths
During a 10-Year Follow-up Period
Version: 4 Date: 07 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors addressed the issues, but did not include the suggested refs in the reference list
(PMID 39061621,  35431507, 37213004). Please edit accordingly.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03736-y (2025)

Title: Endoscopic Resection of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors: Zero Disease-Related Deaths
During a 10-Year Follow-up Period
Version: 4 Date: 07 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
I think authors responded reviews and made effort to improve the manuscript. I do not have any
additional comment.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03459-6 (2025)

Title: Feasibility of Cholecystectomy in Patients with Silent Common Bile Duct Stones Cohort
prospective single arm multicentre study
Version: 3 Date: 16 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Roberto Campagnacci
Reviewer's report:
This paper is focused on a longtime previous  debated similar issue: CBD stones undetected and
or unexpected preoperatively. In that case, about 10% of cases, what we were doing to do? Single
step lap choley/CBD stones removal? Postoperative ERCP? In some papers, authors reported the
single step propcedure even when cbd stones were known before lap  choley, otherwise postop
ERCP remained in a large part of case the main choice. (  (E.A.E.S. multicenter prospective
randomized trial comparing two-stage vs single-stage management of patients with gallstone
disease and ductal calculi
A Cuschieri 1, E Lezoche, M Morino, E Croce, A Lacy, J Toouli, A Faggioni, V M Ribeiro, J
Jakimowicz, J Visa, G B Hanna)
HPB (Oxford) 2017 Jan;19(1):29-35.
doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2016.10.011. Epub 2016 Nov 24.
A 23 year experience with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration
Silvia Quaresima 1, Andrea Balla 2, Mario Guerrieri 3, Roberto Campagnacci 3, Emanuele
Lezoche 2, Alessandro M Paganini     )
Anyway, the natural history of small CBD stones remains an unresolved question; in fact not all
patients experienced an uncomplicated spontaneous passage through Vater’s papilla (low grade
pancratits, pain, discomfort). On the other hand, ERCP remain a not free complication procedure.
So, in this way, I think finally that any effort toward the best practice in term of cost/benefit
evaluation should be well accepted. Undoubtdely it will be necessary to have incontrovertible
randomized studies to confirm as an reliable choice the wait and see strategy. Last but not least,
I would remind the authors as in some countries, as Italy for instance, how medical practice can
be subject to criminal low, and, as a consequence, how the surgical community may be reluctant
to accept a procedure that is not perfectely shared worldwide.
So, I exhort the authors to report and underline this concept in the final part of theis conclusions,
as well as to hope ta have a concistent series of well structured clinical studies to confirm and
support any individual experience.
The paper of Ahmad Maklad and colleagues in my opinion, taking my considerations into
account, is suitable for publication precisely because it allows us to glimpse an alternative not
invasive clinical path.
Sicerely
Roberto Campagnacci, MD,PhD
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03459-6 (2025)

Title: Feasibility of Cholecystectomy in Patients with Silent Common Bile Duct Stones Cohort
prospective single arm multicentre study
Version: 3 Date: 17 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Ahmed Elgeidie
Reviewer's report:
I think the research idea is not valid.
There is a general agreement in surgical society that CBD stones once detected must be removed,
simply because of feared consequences.
Another point is the clinical presentation. I mean that presenting epigastric pain may be due
to gallbladder stones but also may be due to CBD stones, even in the presence of a normal
biochemical tests . Therefore, it may be difficult to discern the actual cause.
Finally, we all know that the gallbladder is a good reservoir for bile, so when we remove it the
CBD stone will mostly be symptomatic. In such case, even if the CBD stone presence is silent,
LC will make it not silent.
For these reasons I found the principle research idea unfathomable.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03459-6 (2025)

Title: Feasibility of Cholecystectomy in Patients with Silent Common Bile Duct Stones Cohort
prospective single arm multicentre study
Version: 5 Date: 02 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Roberto Campagnacci
Reviewer's report:
this study is focused on  very interesting and debated issue over the natural history of CBDstones
incidentally diagnosed during lap choley recovery. The percentage of PEP after ERCP seems to
be higher than the wait and see strategy. We know that PEP have a wide range of seriousness,
from oedema to necrotic pencreatatits, which is a life threatening condition. In this way, wait
and see is better than ERCP. However, the medical legal implication is a worrying feature for
the surgeon in a lot of countries in the world, so that the problem solving choice remains the
best procedure the best option capable protecting against claims. The ERCP strategy doesn’t
budge until there are complications, as serious post ERCP pancreatitis, so that the wait and
see strategy better investigated and better supported by extensive studies could represent an
alternative reliable choice.
In my opinion the conclusion are balanced and the case study is whorty of publication,
underscoring the need of further confirmation.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03751-z (2025)

Title: Low-residue diet with oral nutritional supplements prior to colonoscopy improves the
quality of bowel preparation: an endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial
Version: 0 Date: 31 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for allowing me to review your article on the effectiveness of a low-residue diet with
oral nutritional supplements in bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Although I found this topic
interesting, more information is needed when considering publication.
Major Comments:
Patient acceptance or tolerance is another important factor for bowel preparation. It is a concern
whether ONS was acceptable for patients as a bowel preparation. The authors should at
least comment on this. Do you have information regarding this? Additionally, how about the
compliance of intake for ONS? Did every patient consume the entire amount of ONS?
The indication for colonoscopy must be explained. Otherwise, it is difficult to compare bowel
cleanliness, ADR, and PDR between the two groups.
Please provide the actual volume of PEG solution taken in both groups. Did every patient
consume a total of 3L PEG?
Please provide the cecal insertion time and withdrawal time for colonoscopy. These are also
important when evaluating the quality of bowel preparation.
Minor Comments:
A history of CRC was excluded according to your exclusion criteria, but 18% of the patients in
both groups had a history of abdominal surgery. Is this correct?
Could you provide the actual BBPS and OBPS scores? It would also be helpful for readers to
see the scores for each segment (right, transverse, and left colon).
P5, Lines 103-105: "To achieve a power of 95% and a significance level of 0.05, we calculated
that we would need approximately 81 participants per group to detect a meaningful difference
in cleanliness." What do you mean by "a meaningful difference in cleanliness"? Please explain
clearly how you calculated the sample size.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03751-z (2025)

Title: Low-residue diet with oral nutritional supplements prior to colonoscopy improves the
quality of bowel preparation: an endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial
Version: 0 Date: 06 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
1. The introduction regarding the use of the oral nutritional supplement may require some
clarification. Currently, there is a lack of a clear explanation of how the supplement functions
and the underlying hypotheses supporting its use. More detailed information on these aspects
would enhance understanding and potentially strengthen the overall presentation.
2. For sample size calculation, the authors referred to the study that did not involve any specific
regimen in the diet modification or nutritional supplement.
3. Patient selection should emphasize on the patients with prior experience of colonoscopy.
4. How can the authors ensure that participants comply with the low residual diet and take the
ONS? How much of the PEG was consumed in each patient?
5. When was the grading of bowel preparation evaluated,  whether during the scope withdrawal
or evaluation from the still images afterward?
6. The use of intraluminal simethicone might help to decrease the gas bubble or improve the
visualization. The authors should mention whether simethicone was used or not.
7. Clarification on the evaluation of bowel preparation is of the utmost importance in this study.
The authors should explain how vigorously water irrigation during withdrawal is used to clean
and suction the residue.
8. The fasting time from the last dose of PEG and the time of colonoscopy affect the preparation
quality.  Data regarding the fasting time should be presented.
9. The withdrawal time also impacts the evaluation of bowel preparation quality. How did the
authors balance the time used in cleaning the colon between the two groups.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03751-z (2025)

Title: Low-residue diet with oral nutritional supplements prior to colonoscopy improves the
quality of bowel preparation: an endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial
Version: 1 Date: 03 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors have adequately responded to all comments. This will improve the quality of this
manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03751-z (2025)

Title: Low-residue diet with oral nutritional supplements prior to colonoscopy improves the
quality of bowel preparation: an endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial
Version: 1 Date: 09 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you very much for the revision of the manuscript. However, I still feel that the following
points should be discussed in the manuscript considering that ONSs are probably not something
most people would willingly choose to consume.
1. Please discuss patients' acceptance of Oral Nutritional Supplements (ONSs), including any
relevant prior studies on the subject. I believe patient acceptance is crucial for this bowel
preparation regimen.
2. I believe that relatively young, healthy individuals without constipation are mainly included
in your study. Do you think this regimen should be used for the general population, rather than
targeting specific groups such as patients with constipation? Please discuss.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03664-x (2025)

Title: Global prevalence of Fusobacterium nucleatum and Bacteroides fragilis in patients with
colorectal cancer: an overview of case reports/case series and meta-analysis of prevalence
studies
Version: 1 Date: 10 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Rajdeep Singh
Reviewer's report:
Manuscript Review:
Global prevalence of Fusobacterium nucleatum and Bacteroides fragilis in patients with
colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
The manuscript does a good job in analyzing how common these bacteria are in people with
colorectal cancer (CRC) around the world. Since there’s increasing evidence that gut bacteria
play a role in cancer, this study is timely. The authors took a thorough approach, searching
databases from 2000 to 2024 and applying solid meta-analytic methods, which adds weight to
their findings.
Their results show some interesting trends, like the higher prevalence of F. nucleatum in Asia
and B. fragilis in Europe among CRC cases. They also point out how these findings could be
useful in developing therapies that target gut bacteria, which is a popular area of research right
now. Another interesting point is the difference in prevalence between genders, with men having
higher rates of these bacteria, which could help in creating more focused screening efforts.
That said, there are a few limitations. For example, there aren’t enough studies from Africa
and Oceania, which means the results don’t fully cover the global population. Also, the study
couldn’t explore how these bacteria might relate to specific stages of CRC, so it doesn’t give us
a full picture of how they might influence cancer progression. But despite these limitations, this
manuscript provides valuable insights into the role of these bacteria in CRC and could pave the
way for future research on using microbiota as part of cancer treatment.
In short, this systematic review and meta-analysis is a helpful addition to CRC research
focused on the microbiome. Addressing some of the current gaps in research could make our
understanding of bacterial involvement in CRC even stronger. The manuscript is well-structured,
and the findings offer a good starting point for further studies in this field. I would suggest it
looks good for submission.
Thank you
Dr. Rajdeep Singh MD, FACP
Clinical Assistant Professor, WSU
Hospitalist , Peacehealth Medical Group
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03664-x (2025)

Title: Global prevalence of Fusobacterium nucleatum and Bacteroides fragilis in patients with
colorectal cancer: an overview of case reports/case series and meta-analysis of prevalence
studies
Version: 1 Date: 14 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract Language of publications and characteristics should be included in the results section
P-values should be presented for the comparison with controls Prevalence of the two bacteria
in controls should be also presented Moreover comparisons after taking into consideration the
main risk factors for Ca bowel should be better presented.  Methods Prevalence of the two
bacteria in controls should be also extracted when availableMoreover any risk factors for Ca
bowel development should be also extracted
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03664-x (2025)

Title: Global prevalence of Fusobacterium nucleatum and Bacteroides fragilis in patients with
colorectal cancer: an overview of case reports/case series and meta-analysis of prevalence
studies
Version: 2 Date: 07 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for the opportunity to re-review this manuscript  now titled “Global
prevalence of Fusobacterium nucleatum and Bacteroides fragilis in patients with
colorectal cancer: an overview of case reports/case series and meta-analysis of
prevalence studies
”. Thanks to the authors who have done an overall great job revising the original manuscript. I
only have a few follow-up comments to my previous response:
1. No further comments to their response in Abstract and Introduction sections.
2. Regarding Methods section (no 4), the authors should leave their response statement
concerning grading of heterogeneity in the main text of section 2.5.
3. My concern with result section is with reporting and referencing of the figures in the main
text of section 3.2.
a. The title for Figure 2 should read “Summary of the meta-analysis on the prevalence studies
……”, not just ‘prevalence….
b. The title for Figure 3 should also tell us if it’s a Random effect model or fixed effect model
c. In light of (a) above, this statement should be rephrased as follows … ‘The forest plots are
shown in Figure 3 and all the required data for the meta-analysis are summarized in Figure 2’
…. Rather than saying ‘All of the required data for a meta-analysis has been summarized in
Figure 3’.
Also, … Furthermore, Figure 4 shows ‘some (or no) publication bias’ observed among the
assessed data. Please leave a statement of your assessment of the funnel plot in figure 4 based
on “your” view of apparent (or no) asymmetry - in conjunction with your interpretation of the
Egger’s test and/or Begg’s test
d. The authors should also leave the data from their Egger’s test (most often p-value is enough)
and/or Begg’s test on the Figure 4 footnote.
Best wishes,
Dr Ralph Udeh
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03664-x (2025)

Title: Global prevalence of Fusobacterium nucleatum and Bacteroides fragilis in patients with
colorectal cancer: an overview of case reports/case series and meta-analysis of prevalence
studies
Version: 2 Date: 08 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Rajdeep Singh
Reviewer's report:
Review: Global Prevalence of Fusobacterium nucleatum and Bacteroides fragilis in Colorectal
Cancer
The study systematically reviews and synthesizes data across multiple geographic regions,
providing a global perspective on the prevalence of these bacteria in CRC. By linking specific
bacteria to CRC progression, the research offers valuable insights for developing microbiota-
targeted diagnostics and therapies. Robust Methodology: The use of PRISMA guidelines and
advanced statistical tools ensures the reliability and reproducibility of the findings.
The absence of data from Africa and limited representation from Oceania restricts the global
applicability of the findings.  High variability among included studies could influence the
generalizability of the results.
This research is impactful as it  Highlights gut microbiota's role in CRC, encouraging further
exploration of its diagnostic and therapeutic potential. Serves as a foundation for future studies,
particularly in underrepresented regions.  Influences clinical practice by emphasizing the
importance of microbial screening in CRC management.
In conclusion, this manuscript significantly contributes to the understanding of gut microbiota's
role in CRC.