JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03271-2 (2024)

Title: Mediating Role of Chiro-inositol Metabolites on the Effects of HLA-DR-expressing
CD14+ Monocytes in Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Version: 1 Date: 18 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, the authors reported the “CD14+ monocytes indirectly reduce the risk of IBD
occurrence by increasing the levels of Chiro-inositol metabolites, providing a new perspective
on the immunoregulatory mechanisms underlying IBD. ” The structure of the paper is relatively
reasonable and informative. But there are still some aspects which need to be modified.With
these considerations, I recommend its acceptance after introducing corrections.
My comments for the current manuscript are listed as follow:
1. The introduction contains some trivial statements. The introduction should be concise.
2. The tenses in the text are inconsistent. The first paragraph is in the present tense, the second
is in the past tense, and the fourth is in the present tense.
For example: “ Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), a chronic inflammatory 10 condition, is
caused by several factors involving aberrant immune responses. The two-sample MR approach
was used to estimate the causal relationship of immune cells to IBD. Our findings reveal a new
pathway by which HLA-DR-expressing CD14+ monocytes indirectly reduce the risk of IBD
occurrence by increasing the levels of Chiro-inositol metabolites, providing a new perspective
on the immunoregulatory mechanisms underlying IBD.”
Please check articles for similar problems.
3. The sentence translation in the text is not very accurate.
For example: “The two-sample MR approach was used to estimate the causal relationship of
immune cells to IBD.”
Do you want to show the effect of immune cells on IBD? Or do you want to show the interaction
between immune cells and IBD?
4. The level of translation needs to be further improved.
For example: The research focus has recently shifted towards the role of immune cells in
the development of IBD, highlighting their dual role in initiating and mitigating intestinal
Inflammation.
5. “The data included IBD cases evaluated through imaging, endoscopy, and pathological
assessments to ensure compliance with clinical diagnostic criteria.”
Please specify the specific clinical diagnostic criteria for IBD.
6. Some documents are very old, please change the documents to those of the last 5 years.
7. Some papers or reviews about inflammatory bowel disease should be cited (e.g.,
Acta Biomaterialia, 2023, 160: 252-264; Advanced Science, 2024: 2308092; Journal of
Nanobiotechnology, 2024, 22(1), DOI: org/10.1186/s12951-023-02246-x; Acta Biomaterialia,
2024, 177: 347-360; Materials & Design, 2022, 218: 110686).
8. The author only described the relationship among HLA-DR-expressing CD14+ monocyte,
Chiro-inositol, metabolites and IBD.  There is no in-depth discussion on the possible mechanism
of Chiro-inositol metabolites mediating IBD risk reduction, and I hope to add that.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03271-2 (2024)

Title: Mediating Role of Chiro-inositol Metabolites on the Effects of HLA-DR-expressing
CD14+ Monocytes in Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Version: 2 Date: 06 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
The author made very detailed revisions according to my suggestions. Therefore, I recommend
publishing this manuscript in its current form.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03285-w (2024)

Title: Factors associated with peptic ulcer perforations in Uganda: a multi-hospital cross-
sectional study.
Version: 0 Date: 08 Jan 2024
Reviewer:  David Lagoro Kitara
Reviewer's report:
Factors associated with anatomical patterns of peptic ulcer perforations in a low-income country:
a multicenter cross-sectional study.
Thank you for this manuscript which describes a surgical emergency in hospitals in Uganda.
General comments.
1. The manuscript has so many grammatical errors and typos. They must be corrected. An
English editing tool can be used.
2. The flow of the manuscript needs a thorough review.
3. Suggested title: “Factors associated with peptic ulcer perforations in Uganda: a multi-hospital
cross-sectional study.
4. Describe how you determined that the ulcers were not cancerous.
5. As a clinician it would be good to describe what was done and the outcome of treatment.
6. Headings of tables should describe what is inside the table.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03285-w (2024)

Title: Factors associated with peptic ulcer perforations in Uganda: a multi-hospital cross-
sectional study.
Version: 0 Date: 25 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors
I would like to congratulate the authors for the work done to conduct this study and to prepare the
manuscript. This manuscript contributes to scientific knowledge in the management of patients
with peptic ulcer disease in Uganda, the East African region and Africa. I however have several
comments and suggestions to make the manuscript more robust and contribute to the body of
knowledge.
General comments:  There are several spelling and grammatical errors which should be
addressed by the authors.
Methodology: The methods and materials section is well done. However, the following
information is important:
1. Study design
The study design described is more of a retrospective study design because the data was
abstracted from the study participants files. The data on the patterns of the peptic ulcers is
routinely collected in each of these sites. Is this the case? It should be clarified
2. Study procedures
- What was the specific qualification of the surgeons who performed the surgery? The providers
who offered care was described but the specific provider who did the surgeries is not indicated.
This is important to ensure the validity of the data of the patterns of perforated peptic ulcers.
- Was the pattern of all peptic ulcer perforations recorded intraoperatively presumptively and
only those who consented to the study had their data included in the study or is recording of the
patterns done routinely as part of standard of care? If this is the case, it should clearly be stated.
How was the study coordinated between the various sites?
Discussion/Conclusion
- what is the significance of this study to the surgeons? This should be discussed and emphasized
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03285-w (2024)

Title: Factors associated with peptic ulcer perforations in Uganda: a multi-hospital cross-
sectional study.
Version: 1 Date: 27 May 2024
Reviewer:  David Lagoro Kitara
Reviewer's report:
Editor,
I have completed the review of this manuscript.
The authors have revised the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments.
However, they need to use the same conclusion in the abstract and the main manuscript.
Best wishes
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03293-w (2024)

Title: Physician perspectives of Helicobacter pylori diagnostic and treatment practices in
Canada: Results of a Canadian Survey
Version: 2 Date: 27 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
The current survey conducted in Canada to show the status of doctors' attitude on H.pylori. But
the sample size is small and we wondered whether they could represent the situation in Canada.
The questionair should be based on the latest H.pylori consensus like Maastricht VI consensus
published in Gut 2022, and should be internal verified and then used for the purpose. Also the
low awareness of H.pylori and backward knowledge will obstruct other doctor's enthusiasm in
treating this bacteria.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03293-w (2024)

Title: Physician perspectives of Helicobacter pylori diagnostic and treatment practices in
Canada: Results of a Canadian Survey
Version: 2 Date: 01 Apr 2024
Reviewer:  Po-Ke Hsu
Reviewer's report:
1. Can you explain why family physicians think drug resistance is not a major issue, or why
amoxicillin?
2. Regardless of “the ACG Clinical Guideline: Treatment Of Helicobacter pylori Infection. Am.
J. Gastroenterol. 2017” or “the AGA Clinical practice update on the management of refractory
Helicobacter pylori Infection: expert review. Gastroenterology. 2021” , there are clear treatment
and screening guidelines. Why are the opinions of gastroenterologists and family physicians
still so different?
3. The conclusion part is not clear. This study used a questionnaire to understand the thoughts
of doctors in two specialties. Although it is a good idea, it still has little help for future medical
progress (there is already a guideline for reference). Therefore, the conclusion paragraph still
needs to be streamlined and the topic clearly stated.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03287-8 (2024)

Title: B3GNT7 regulates mucin O-glycosylation to alleviate colonic inflammation
Version: 1 Date: 07 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the authors investigate  the specific role of B3GNT7 in ulcerative colitis and
explore its potential as a molecular marker. The subject matter is highly relevant, and the results
present relevant findings. However, a few minor points require further clarification to enhance
the manuscript for publication.
1) The presence of minor grammatical errors in the text has been noted. To address this, I
recommend utilizing an online grammar checker or an English correction service for thorough
proofreading.
2) In the sentence, "Protein interaction analysis demonstrated stronger interaction between
B3GNT7 and the mucin MUC family, including Muc2, Muc3, and Muc6," from the section
titled "Functional enrichment analysis of B3GNT7," it is unclear how protein interactions were
evaluated from gene expression data. To improve clarity, it is necessary to provide a more
detailed explanation of this analysis, both in this section and in the Material and Methods section
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03287-8 (2024)

Title: B3GNT7 regulates mucin O-glycosylation to alleviate colonic inflammation
Version: 2 Date: 08 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors should include the importance of mucin O-glycosylation in cancers in the
Discussion section.
The authors should cite more articles describing the importance of mucin glycosylation and
B3GNT7, for example, MUC1 (important for inflammation) https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/abs/pii/S0006291X02005533
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31753595/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8980628/
The authors should write in the Discussion section about the limitations of this study. There is
no validation using cell lines or mouse models.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03287-8 (2024)

Title: B3GNT7 regulates mucin O-glycosylation to alleviate colonic inflammation
Version: 2 Date: 05 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
I read the full text carefully. The author found the important role of B3GNT7 in the pathogenesis
of ulcerative colitis through bioinformation technology, and it was verified in ulcerative colitis
patients and DSS induced colitis models. At the same time, KEGG enrichment analysis and PPI
analysis found some potential targets, and the process was very smooth. But the puzzle is that
since the authors have carried out animal experiments, why did they not verify these targets?
Therefore, I think this article does not meet the requirements for journal publication. The author
may also submit the application again by means of supplementary experiments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03292-x (2024)

Title: PREDICTIVE VALUES OF AN IMMUNOLOGICAL FECAL OCCULT BLOOD
TEST FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF COLORECTAL CANCER COMPARED USING
COLONOSCOPY IN SYMPTOMATIC PATIENTS IN YAOUNDE (CAMEROON)
Version: 5 Date: 14 Jan 2024
Reviewer:  Rinkalben Kakadiya
Reviewer's report:
Comments to authors
1. Please check the manuscript for the English language. There is incorrect language throughout
the paper, which causes trouble in understanding scientific content. In this case, you may want
to have your manuscript checked/edited and checked for grammar by a native English speaker
or somebody well-versed with it before re-submission, particularly if English is not your first
language. A clear and concise language will help editors and reviewers concentrate on the
scientific content of your paper and thus smoothen the peer review process.
2. The study's objective was “to highlight the predictive value of an iFOB test for the diagnosis
of a CRC at the colonoscopy in the city of Yaoundé (Cameroon).” This needs more clarification
like early CRC, and precancerous lesion. For diagnosis of CRC in symptomatic patients, how
does the result of iFOB affect the decision of colonoscopy? iFOB is used for screening of
asymptomatic patients.
3. In the result section, you have analyzed positive iFOB and the presence of CRC. iFOB is
for screening; I believe you should analyse and describe the presence of early CRC or polyps
concerning iFOB.
4.  In the discussion, it was written like “With this result, we can suggest that, for a patient
presenting some abdominal pains, constipation or diarrhoea, altered general status, anemia with
a negative iFOB test, the risk to have a CRC is low. They can be exempted from a colonoscopy”.
I do not agree with this statement. The symptomatic patient needs a colonoscopy even with
negative iFOB. First, all patients with CRC do not have positive iFOB; in this study, 3(17%) out
of 17 were negative, which is a significant number of cases. Secondly, these symptoms could
be due to IBD, diverticular disease, which also needs colonoscopy.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03292-x (2024)

Title: PREDICTIVE VALUES OF AN IMMUNOLOGICAL FECAL OCCULT BLOOD
TEST FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF COLORECTAL CANCER COMPARED USING
COLONOSCOPY IN SYMPTOMATIC PATIENTS IN YAOUNDE (CAMEROON)
Version: 5 Date: 21 Jan 2024
Reviewer:  Jian Zhao
Reviewer's report:
This study aimed to explore the predictive value of immunological fecal occult blood (iFOB)
test in screening CRC in SSA area. The design of this research is relatively simple, and some
key issues must be addressed before the article is published.
Major issues:
1. The introduction of the abstract can be simplified by quickly stating the purpose of this study
in 1-2 sentences
INTRODUCTION SECTION
2. “They are Clear, easy-to-interpret result It is a useful aid to detect bleeding caused by
a number of gastrointestinal disorders, such as diverticulitis, colitis, polyps, and colorectal
cancer.” This should be two sentences with punctuation in the middle, and attention should be
paid to capitalization.
3. Cited references should be increased.
MATERIALS AND METHOD SECTION
4. Test procedure: This section needs more details, such as: what equipment is being used? What
antibodies? What is the concentration?
5. How is the result of the Occult blood test determined? Is there a corresponding standard?
RESULTS SECTION
6. I suggest adding images of typical cases, including colonoscopy and iFOB tests, preferably
listing them separately based on true positive, false positive, true negative, and false negative.
DISCUSSION SECTION
7. This discussion is terrible and a lot of adjustment is required.
8. The detailed data should not be listed in the discussion section, but in the results section.
9. The organization of the discussion is not clear enough.
10. “This is in accord with other studies which have described the lower digestive bleeding as a
main indication of colonoscopy.” needs to cite comparative literature.
11. Sample size is generally used to calculate whether there is statistical efficacy. In the article,
103 patients were included, and only 17 CRC cases were included. It is necessary to calculate
the sample size to make the conclusions reliable.
12. The discussion part should focus on the progressiveness and convenience of the method you
use. Whereas demographic characteristics and indicators for colonoscopy can not be discussed.
13. “This poor PPV in SSA countries have also been described in Nigeria by Knapp et al in 2021
and by Alatise et al in 2022”.There is only one citation here, it should be two different references.
14. “For this reason, any patient who is able to run realize the colonoscopy should benefit of this
exploration if there is possible” Is this exploration referring to colonoscopy or iFOB test?
15. Failure to address substantive issues within limitations, IFOB test in symptomatic patients is
not a limitation. The limitation of this study is that the sample size is too small and the research
results have not been externally validated.
Minor issues:
1. The article contains a large number of grammar errors, it is recommended to polish the
language.
2. The font size and line spacing are inconsistent, please unify the format.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03292-x (2024)

Title: PREDICTIVE VALUES OF AN IMMUNOLOGICAL FECAL OCCULT BLOOD
TEST FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF COLORECTAL CANCER COMPARED USING
COLONOSCOPY IN SYMPTOMATIC PATIENTS IN YAOUNDE (CAMEROON)
Version: 7 Date: 29 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
No response was given for comment 3: "In the result section, you have analyzed positive iFOB
and the presence of CRC. iFOB is for screening; I believe you should analyse and describe the
presence of early CRC or polyps concerning iFOB."
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03292-x (2024)

Title: PREDICTIVE VALUES OF AN IMMUNOLOGICAL FECAL OCCULT BLOOD
TEST FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF COLORECTAL CANCER COMPARED USING
COLONOSCOPY IN SYMPTOMATIC PATIENTS IN YAOUNDE (CAMEROON)
Version: 7 Date: 05 May 2024
Reviewer:  Jian Zhao
Reviewer's report:
The quality of the manuscript has significantly improved after revision. Congratulations to the
author.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03292-x (2024)

Title: PREDICTIVE VALUES OF AN IMMUNOLOGICAL FECAL OCCULT BLOOD
TEST FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF COLORECTAL CANCER COMPARED USING
COLONOSCOPY IN SYMPTOMATIC PATIENTS IN YAOUNDE (CAMEROON)
Version: 7 Date: 11 May 2024
Reviewer:  Henry Dilonga Meriki
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed most of my worries. Nonetheless, there are some suggestions for
which they did not provide a convincing response. For example, the suggestion to include
likelihood ratio (LR) and area under the curve (AUC) with a graph in the performance variables.
Their response was "Not available."  I presumed the same data used to estimate the sensitivity,
specificity, PPV and NPV can be used to generate these parameters.
Also, in Figure 3, there are no axes labels.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03292-x (2024)

Title: PREDICTIVE VALUES OF AN IMMUNOLOGICAL FECAL OCCULT BLOOD
TEST FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF COLORECTAL CANCER COMPARED USING
COLONOSCOPY IN SYMPTOMATIC PATIENTS IN YAOUNDE (CAMEROON)
Version: 8 Date: 09 Jun 2024
Reviewer:  Henry Dilonga Meriki
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed the most relevant concerns
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03284-x (2024)

Title: The relationship between innate/adaptive immunity and gastrointestinal cancer : a multi-
omics Mendelian randomization study
Version: 0 Date: 18 May 2024
Reviewer:  Nicoleta Leopa
Reviewer's report:
The topic under discussion is an important one and you have described some interesting
findings. The authors of the article " The relationship between innate/adaptive immunity and
gastrointestinal cancer : a multi-omics Mendelian randomization study" respected the structure
imposed by the journal, it is an article of interest for specialty readers, together with other similar
articles it may have an impact on the development of future guidelines on gastrointestinal cancer.
To strengthen this manuscript, consider the following:
- Page 3,” chimaeric antigen receptor (CAR)” is chimeric antigen receptors (CARs)
- - section MM: flow chart, primary point, secondary endpoint, after that IBD, statistical method
used and statistical tests used.
- the statistical analysis part is far too detailed, it should be rewritten in a way that is useful to
the reader
- how was the randomization performed?
- The authors should emphasize more the innovation of the study.
- the conclusion should be rewritten, in a sentence that clearly shows the studied genes and their
connection with gastrointestinal cancer.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03284-x (2024)

Title: The relationship between innate/adaptive immunity and gastrointestinal cancer : a multi-
omics Mendelian randomization study
Version: 0 Date: 25 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
Review comments
This manuscript presents very interesting data on the association between immune-related genes
and GI cancer. The authors used databases and published data to identify HLA-DRA genes and
methylation sites that regulate HLA-DRA gene expression and clarified their association with
gastric cancer risk. However, several questions arise from this study, and I would like to ask the
authors to provide appropriate answers.
1. Expression of HLA-DRA has also been found in colorectal cancer and has been shown to
correlate with tumor infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL). What was the correlation between HLA-
DRA expression and TILs and other clinicopathological factors in this study?
2. The authors showed by single-cell expression analysis that HLA-DRA expression is enriched
in macrophages and myeloid cells in gastric cancer tissue. What do you think is the effects of
this high expression of HLA-DRA in the gastric cancer microenvironment on carcinogenesis
and prognosis of gastric cancer?
3. The authors identified methylation site (cg17294865) associated with gastric cancer risk.
Where is this methylation site in the HLA-DRA gene? Promoter region?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03282-z (2024)

Title: Embolization alone is as effective as TACE for unresectable HCC: systematic review and
meta-analysis of randomized controlled trails
Version: 1 Date: 26 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Wang G, et al. conducted a meta-analysis comparing TAE and TACE for unresectable HCC.
They concluded that TAE was as effective as TACE for unresectable HCC. In total this
meta-analysis was well conducted and supplied important information for the treatment of
unresectable HCC. However, there were several points to be addressed:
1. the details of the literature search should be supplied.
2. The etiology of HCC in western or eastern countries was different. If possible, a sensitivity
analysis based on etiology should be performed.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03282-z (2024)

Title: Embolization alone is as effective as TACE for unresectable HCC: systematic review and
meta-analysis of randomized controlled trails
Version: 1 Date: 26 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, Wang and colleagues compare the effectiveness of TACE with TAE alone
for unresectable HCC. This manuscript has significance because the authors’ analyses suggested
that TAE, which was simpler, cheaper, and safer than TACE, was as effective as TACE. I offer
a few comments outlined below that need to be addressed before considering publication.
Specific comments
1. Table 1: Please clarify the country these articles are from to understand the racial background
of these studies.
2. Page 6, Line 21: The authors excluded two studies. Which from did they exclude studies? They
excluded from not six studies but 42 articles. Please clarify the other reasons to avoid confusion.
3. Please include the table that compares the major complications of TACE and TAE.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03282-z (2024)

Title: Embolization alone is as effective as TACE for unresectable HCC: systematic review and
meta-analysis of randomized controlled trails
Version: 2 Date: 18 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This meta-analysis is interesting and addresses a relevant topic
for the treatment of patients with liver cancer. However, there are several concerns regarding
methodology and interpretation of results, as well as sample size.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
First, authors should update the literature search since it was performed up to April 9, 2022,
and several papers could have been published in almost two years. Regarding statistics, it is
not recommended to perform a fixed-effects model or random-effects model depending on
heterogeneity results. With such a low sample size, a random-effects model should be used in all
comparisons. It is also surprising, according to Table 1, that follow-up (months) is only available
for one study, so it is unclear how the hazard ratio was available. In addition to this, the number
of events and definitions of outcomes should be clearly defined and detailed for each article to
check figures and to assess comparability. Publication bias analysis through a funnel plot is not
reliable with such a low number of studies. Small sample size is a major limitation of this study.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
English language should be clearly revised since there are frequent typos and errors (such as,
reginal instead of regional)
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03282-z (2024)

Title: Embolization alone is as effective as TACE for unresectable HCC: systematic review and
meta-analysis of randomized controlled trails
Version: 4 Date: 27 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have adequately responded to most of the questions and
concerns raised in my comments and the manuscript has been improved.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
It is unclear why the authors have updated the literature search up to September 2003 instead of
March 2024. Given the low number of studies included, any study could be relevant and modify
the results. Thus, I strongly recommend that authors update the bibliographic search up to 31st
March 2024 or even April 2024.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03282-z (2024)

Title: Embolization alone is as effective as TACE for unresectable HCC: systematic review and
meta-analysis of randomized controlled trails
Version: 7 Date: 19 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have responded adequately to the concerns raised.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors have updated the research to April 30, 2024, as requested. No further revisions are
needed.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03280-1 (2024)

Title: Association between body roundness index (BRI) and gallstones: results of the 2017-2020
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)
Version: 1 Date: 12 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is an article that fulfills the objective it sets out to achieve. The methodological model is
clear and reproducible in other cases. Despite the study having limitations, pointed out by the
authors, I suggest publishing it.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03280-1 (2024)

Title: Association between body roundness index (BRI) and gallstones: results of the 2017-2020
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)
Version: 1 Date: 14 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I suggest a more detailed and complex discussion, assessing the benefits and particularities of
use of BRI instead of BMI for predicting biliary stones.
I think is important to rewrite discussion
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03280-1 (2024)

Title: Association between body roundness index (BRI) and gallstones: results of the 2017-2020
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)
Version: 1 Date: 15 May 2024
Reviewer:  Tamer A. A. M. Habeeb
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for authors for the efforts performed in this manuscript. I have many structural and
scientific comments and I hope you accept
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03280-1 (2024)

Title: Association between body roundness index (BRI) and gallstones: results of the 2017-2020
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)
Version: 1 Date: 17 May 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, please see my comments and edits below
-In the section on the baseline characteristics of participants, it is noted that the dietary
information collected included details on energy, sugar, and fat. However, it is crucial to
determine whether additional dietary factors such as water intake, dietary fiber, caffeine
consumption, and alcohol consumption were also documented and analyzed as part of the dietary
information.
-With respect to limitations, it is acknowledged that despite the consideration of several pertinent
variables, the complete elimination of confounding factors poses a significant challenge.
Therefore, it is essential to exercise prudence when interpreting the conclusion, and this
cautionary note should be explicitly elucidated within the limitations section of the study.
-In the discussion of covariates, it is important to address the absence of information concerning
participants' medication use. Notably, certain medications, including estrogen, progesterone,
and octreotide, are known to predispose individuals to gallstones. The failure to account for
the potential impact of medication use represents a noteworthy limitation that should be duly
acknowledged or included within the study's limitations.
-Furthermore, it is suggested that the potential influence of the body roundness index on
gallstone formation may be attributed to hormonal levels. Therefore, conducting further research
to explore this potential connection and integrating relevant findings into the study is advisable.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03280-1 (2024)

Title: Association between body roundness index (BRI) and gallstones: results of the 2017-2020
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)
Version: 2 Date: 27 May 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors
Upon completion of the necessary revisions and addressing of the comments, the revised
manuscript will be suitable for acceptance for publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03280-1 (2024)

Title: Association between body roundness index (BRI) and gallstones: results of the 2017-2020
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)
Version: 2 Date: 30 May 2024
Reviewer:  Tamer A. A. M. Habeeb
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for the authors
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03244-5 (2024)

Title: Low Hartmann’s procedure versus abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer, a
propensity score matching cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 23 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I have read the manuscript with great interest since the complications secondary to the APR
surgery are not negligible, as well as the quality of life of the patients who receive this treatment.
The manuscript is well structured and written and the results, despite being a retrospective work,
are interesting and provide useful data so that surgeon and patient can share the most appropriate
therapeutic decision.
Regarding the methodology and results, I would like the authors to try to clarify some issues:
1. In the methodology, the Authors have analyzed short-term (< 90 days) and long-term
complications, defining “long term” as a time more than 90 days. The maximum follow-up time
is not specified; a complication that occurs within less than a year should be considered medium-
term; It is possible that patients from both groups have developed a parastomal hernia 2-3 years
after the intervention... For all this, it is suggested to add the maximum follow-up time of the
patients and talk about complications in the short and medium-long term ( > 90 days).
2. Minor complications have been significantly lower in the LHP group; Surprisingly, perineal
wound infection in APR has been only 4.8% and 50% lower than abdominal infection in LHP:
therefore, in your experience, avoiding a perineal wound with LHP does not seem to be an
advantage.
3. How do you explain such a low rate of perineal infection compared to the literature?
The percentage of patients undergoing APR after neoadjuvant RT treatment was 5%: this
data is striking, since APR is usually indicated in more locally advanced tumors. Can the
authors explain why so few patients underwent preoperative RT? RT significantly increases
postoperative complications, especially in terms of wound infection and delayed healing:
perhaps the lack of differences in major complications between LHP and APR is due to that:
what do you think about it?
4. Pelvic abscess has been defined as a minor complication; However, the clinical repercussion,
the need for drainage and the increase in hospital stay that this complication entails, justify its
definition more properly as a major complication: what do you think about it?
5. Legend Fig.1: add PSM abbreviation.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03244-5 (2024)

Title: Low Hartmann’s procedure versus abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer, a
propensity score matching cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 28 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors reported "Low Hartmann’s procedure versus abdominoperineal resection for rectal
cancer, a propensity score matching cohort study". I have some comments.
1. The authors state  that "LHP was still a reliable alternative in selected RC patients when
primary anastomosis was not recommended" in conclusion. However, the authors compared
LHP and APR. In order to clarify the authors' clinical question, I believe that LHP and primary
anastomosis should be compared in cases where the distance of the tumor from the anal verge
is similar. I think there is a problem with the study design.
2. The primary outcome was the incidence of major complications in this study. Propensity
score matching was performed with a 1:2 ratio, based on gender, age, tumor stage, ASA score,
BMI, PAS, and surgical procedure. For example, preoperative treatment may be a risk factor
for postoperative complications. Please provide the rationale for choosing "gender, age, tumor
stage, ASA score, BMI, PAS, and surgical procedure" as the matching covariates.
3. I thought it would be better to evaluate whether the matching was successful or not.
For example, standardized differences can be calculated to examine imbalances in patient
characteristics before and after matching.
4. The authors state  that  "the occurrence rate of minor complications was significantly higher
in the LHP group (52% vs 21.4%, P<0.001), and the difference mainly lay in abdominal wound
infection (10% vs 0%, P=0.006) and bowel obstruction (16% vs 4.8%, P=0.028)".  LHP with
fewer pelvic defects may have a lower risk of complications compared to APR. Please explain
why LHP had more complications. I also could not understand why ileus  was more common
in LHP.
5.The authors state  that  "a higher incidence of parastomal hernia was observed in APR group
(8.3%) during the long-term follow-up".  I could not understand why parastomal hernia was
more common in LHP.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03244-5 (2024)

Title: Low Hartmann’s procedure versus abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer, a
propensity score matching cohort study
Version: 2 Date: 19 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for answering the questions raised in my review. In any case, with respect to point 4,
it would be more interesting for readers if you detailed the differences in pelvic abscess between
the 2 techniques, regardless of the Clavien Dindo classification.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03268-x (2024)

Title: Mental health and quality of life in patients with chronic liver disease: A single-center
structural equation model
Version: 1 Date: 04 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
Manuscript: Mental Health and Quality of Life in Patients with Chronic Liver Disease: A Single-
Centre Structural Equation Model
The current study aimed to understand which predictors influence the mental health and quality
of life of chronic liver disease (CLD) patients to advise better policy protection. At first glance,
the topic is interesting and has important implications for assessing and treating individuals with
CLD. However, some aspects should be reviewed.
Abstract:
The patients' characteristics should be described (age, degree of liver dysfunction).
The instruments used to evaluate the mental health and quality of life of the patients studied
should be described.
The introduction should be organised consistently. A coherent literature review should precede
the objectives. Next, diagnostic hypotheses must be formulated, and the study's aim should be
elaborated.
The objective and the methods section are conflated. The aim should be rewritten.
Was the Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire validated in the studied population?
Was the COPE Inventory validated in the studied population?
Was the Instrument for Common Mental Disorders to measure mental health validated in the
studied population?
Was the brief WHOQOL survey validated in the studied population?
Were patients over 60 years of age included? Were conditions that could influence the response
to the questionnaires, such as dementia and hepatic encephalopathy, among others, excluded?
The characterisation of the patients with cirrhosis is of utmost importance, such as the severity
of liver disease, aetiology of liver disease, presence of portal hypertension and presence of
hepatocellular carcinoma.
The article structure and English should be carefully reviewed.
Major revision
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03268-x (2024)

Title: Mental health and quality of life in patients with chronic liver disease: A single-center
structural equation model
Version: 1 Date: 10 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
The manuscript “Mental Health and Quality of Life in Patients with Chronic Liver Disease:
A Single-Center Structural Equation Model” deals with a very interesting and always current
topic. The manuscript is written in a clear and concise manner with adequate methodology and
deserves to be published in BMC Gastroenterology. Congratulations.
With respect,
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03268-x (2024)

Title: Mental health and quality of life in patients with chronic liver disease: A single-center
structural equation model
Version: 3 Date: 24 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
Comment 1: The manuscript needs extensive revision for language and grammar.
Comment 2: The manuscript's conclusion exceeds the paper's objectives and methods. This
aspect makes the manuscript weak.
Comment 3: What criteria were used to diagnose chronic liver disease?
Comment 4: (Abstract) "The age of ranged from 18 to 79 years and included the following
diagnosis: (i) Chronic Viral Hepatitis (n=271), (ii) Cirrhosis (n=259), (iii) Hepatocellular
Carcinoma (n=193), and (iv) Non-viral Liver Disease (n=127)". This sentence should be revised.
Comment 5: (Introduction) Could the authors define ‘bio-psycho-social-spiritual model’?
Which reference(s) addresses this model?
Comment 6: The objective of the study needs to be clarified.
Comment 7: The manuscript’s structure remains confusing.
Comment 8: The manuscript methodology should be strengthened.
Comment 9: The article must be profoundly modified to adapt to the BMC journal.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03276-x (2024)

Title: Alpha-Fetoprotein and APRI as Predictive Markers for Patients with Type C Hepatitis B-
Related Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure: A Retrospective Study
Version: 3 Date: 31 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
In this study, a new prognostic scoring model was developed to assess 90-day survival in patients
with type C HBV-ACLF based on serological indices of the liver and noninvasive assessment of
liver fibrosis. The area under the ROC curve was 0.851 [95% CI (0.801-0.901)] and significantly
higher than other scoring models such as MELD, IMELD, MELD-Na, TACIA and COSSH-
ALF-II (all P<0.001). However, external validation is lacking.
1. Figure 1, the second text box in the line under Excluded other causes of type C ACLF suggests
adding a space, otherwise it is easy to cause misinterpretation by the readers
2. add diagnostic criteria for type C ACLF
3. Competing risk model be adopted for patients who then undergo liver transplantation?
4. WBC should be a non-normally distributed, the median should be used to represent it.
5. Regarding the statistical method, how to screen variables, the definition of p-value need to be
described in the statistical method, and finally into the multiple regression using what method
to screen variables into the final model.
6. Suggest to add the comparison of the new predictive model with other models and calculate
the p-value.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03276-x (2024)

Title: Alpha-Fetoprotein and APRI as Predictive Markers for Patients with Type C Hepatitis B-
Related Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure: A Retrospective Study
Version: 3 Date: 25 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Iliana Mani
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
This is a really interesting study in HBV-related acute-on-chronic liver failure, proposing a new
prognostic model, using commonly available biomarkers, for short term mortality in this difficult
to treat population. However, there are several limitations in its current form.
Major comments:
• The manuscript needs extensive editing for grammar and syntax errors.
• Authors should provide information about HBV-DNA levels in survivors and non-survivors
as well as about treatment they received (Table 1).
• Was there any difference in treatment status in survivors vs non survivors?
• Authors should clarify which variables they included in their multivariate analysis. Inclusion
of highly correlated variables such as NLR and white blood cells, APRI and PLTs, ALT, FIB-4
and PLTs, Age, ALT, AST, overfits model and no solid results can be drawn.
It would be of great interest if they also performed a univariate analysis of HBV-DNA levels as a
predictor of mortality [Lei JH et al.   Is HBV viral load at admission associated with development
of acute-on-chronic liver failure in patients with acute decompensation of chronic hepatitis B
related cirrhosis?. BMC Infect Dis 19, 363 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-019-3988-1 ]
• In addition to the above, authors should provide more information about the statistical methods
they applied to choose parameters for the development of their model, especially if multivariate
analysis was overfitted.
• Authors should mention as a major limitation the lack of a validation cohort, as this parameter
is of paramount importance in the development of a predictive model.
To conclude, except of the language errors, my main concern is the statistical analysis on which
development of the proposed model was based.
Minor comments:
Table 1. Please expand all the abbreviations used (Pre – Alb, NLR, MLR, HE, MELD, TACIA,
COSSH-ACLF II)
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03276-x (2024)

Title: Alpha-Fetoprotein and APRI as Predictive Markers for Patients with Type C Hepatitis B-
Related Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure: A Retrospective Study
Version: 5 Date: 28 Nov 2023
Reviewer:  Iliana Mani
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
Authors addressed my concerns appropriately.
I have no further comments to make
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03276-x (2024)

Title: Alpha-Fetoprotein and APRI as Predictive Markers for Patients with Type C Hepatitis B-
Related Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure: A Retrospective Study
Version: 5 Date: 14 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Overall the revised manuscript appears to address most of the key
issues raised in initial peer review.  This is a unique analysis addressing an issue of high
clinical relevance due to the high mortality associated with HBV-related acute-on-chronic
liver failure and contributes a novel risk model which is potentially actionable.  There are
intrinsic methodologic limitations which are not modifiable but should be addressed fully in the
discussion section.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
1) study population: the additional language clarifying diagnostic criteria for HBV-ACLF is
helpful both in text and Figure 1, but it remains unclear how the investigators adjudicated
HBV as precipitant for ACLF versus other precipitants as well as distinction between ""further
decompensation"" as part of natural history of decompensated cirrhosis versus ACLF - please
kindly comment; 2) Results: please include oral NUC status in Table 1 - clinically we would
expect antiviral therapy to be associated with lower risk of hepatic decompensation and
improved transplant-free survival based on published data - please also comment on observations
on oral NUC in model in discussion section; 3) discussion: comment on significance of these
findings in context of existing data on type A and B HBV-ACLF; 4) discussion: would
suggest identifying homogenous population (Chinese) as potential limitation which may not be
applicable to other populations"