JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-3 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Distribution of enteric glia and GDNF during gut inflammation
Version: 1Date:19 November 2010
Reviewer: Helena HTH Tlaskalova-Hogenova
Reviewer's report:
Manuscript "Distribution of enteric glia .." deals with important topics. Involvement
of enteric glia and GDNF in intestinal inflammation is very actual and interesting
issue. Authors found increased numbers of enteric glial cells in gut of patients
with ulcerative colitis and infectious colitis. In contrast, reduced expression of
GFAP and GDNF was found in the colon of CD patients. The description of the
Methods and Results is however not sufficient to convince the readers about the
results.
Major Revisions:
I miss more detailed description of the patient´s group (e.g. period of taking the
biopsy - activation or remission, how this is activity was graded etc). The
description (definition) of inflammed and non inflammed colonic biopsies is not
sufficient. I miss also the description from which areas of colon the specimens
were taken (tissue distribution of samples).
I would recommend to describe at least briefly preparation of the samples for
GFAP levels measurement.
From the Results it is not clear if the glial cells were identified in plexus
submucosus or directly in lamina propria. To improve the microscopical finding it
would be important to stain also neurons (to see the relationship with glial cells).
To determine the type of cells expressing GFAP and GDNF is not possible from
presented figures.
Minor Revisions:
I recommend to improve description of Figure 1 to precize the localization of the
GFAP and GDNF expressing cells and to determine the areas where biopsies
were taken.
In Discussion I would recommend to add some references related to sentence
"that innate defects of the enteric glia network lead to a leaky mucosal barrier
which influences the adpative immune system".
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-3 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Distribution of enteric glia and GDNF during gut inflammation
Version: 2Date:7 January 2011
Reviewer: Robert Ehehalt
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
All of my concerns have been properly addressed. I only have one minor revision
left. Figure 3, first Western blot. The 66 KDa label does not correlate with the
Western blot. I suggest to erase this label or to show the whole blot.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-2 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effect of butyrate and cancer progression on keratin 8 expression in the
colon
Version: 1Date:24 June 2010
Reviewer: Charles Giardina
Reviewer's report:
General comments
The manuscript by Khan et al analyzes the expression of keratin 8 in normal
colon and colon cancer tissue. One goal of this analysis is to determine whether
keratin 8 expression in normal tissue is lower at sites closer to a cancer. In
addition, the authors determine whether keratin 8 expression is associated with
fecal butyrate concentration. Using a well-described histological scoring assay,
the authors conclude that there is no significant correlation between keratin 8
expression and normal tissue location. However, an inverse correlation between
keratin 8 expression and fecal butyrate is observed for normal and tumor tissue,
with the tumor tissue showing a significant difference. This finding should be of
interest to individuals interested in dietary fiber and colon cancer risk.
Specific comments
1. The work described in the manuscript is technically very well done. However,
the relationship between butyrate levels, keratin 8 expression and cancer
development is muddled. Although this study is unlikely to lead to definitive
conclusions, the authors’ views on how keratin 8 expression in normal and
cancer tissue impacts colon cancer development needs to be more clearly
articulated. Do lower levels of keratin 8 expression sensitize the cancer cells to
apoptosis? Does lower keratin 8 expression lead to a less differentiated/more
aggressive cancer? A clearer interpretation of the findings needs to be provided
(starting with the abstract).
2. With regard to the influence of butyrate on cytokeratin 8 expression, it should
be clarified whether this is a direct or indirect effect of butyrate. This could be
assessed by determining whether butyrate influences keratin 8 expression in
colon cancer cell lines.
3. Butyrate levels are measured at a single time point. Is there any information on
the intra-individual stability of fecal butyrate levels? If so, this information should
be provided and/or cited.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-2 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effect of butyrate and cancer progression on keratin 8 expression in the
colon
Version: 2Date:15 October 2010
Reviewer: Charles Giardina
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed the issues raised in my initial critique. It is an
interesting report.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-2 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Keratin 8 expression in colon cancer associates with low faecal butyrate
levels
Version: 4Date:16 December 2010
Reviewer: Beat Schwaller
Reviewer's report:
Comments
The authors have addressed the remaining issues, most importantly, they have
reduced the strength of their claims about the causal relationship between low
faecal butyrate levels and keratin 8 expression. They now describe it as a
possible association.
Minor Essential revisions
In the revised legend of Fig. 3, there are still references to the “deleted Figs. 4A
and 4B”, which are actually now Figs. 3C and 3D. This should be corrected.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-1 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Application of Weibull Model for Survival of Patients with Gastric Cancer
Version: 1Date:11 October 2010
Reviewer: Reza Fatemi
Reviewer's report:
This is a retrospective study dealing with survival of gastric cancer patients using
Cox and Weibull models. The results from both Weibull and Cox models
indicated that patients with a past history of gastric cancer had a decreased risk
of survival significantly followed by poorly or moderately differentiated histologic
grade. Eradicative degree of surgery, pathologic stage, depth of tumor invasion
and tumor location were also identified as significant independent prognostic
factors. This is a well written paper and the topic is interesting in statistical and
methodological aspects.
Our comments regarding this paper:
1. The authors compared application of two statistical models in survival analysis,
but in discussion section these comparisons were not well discussed and there
are some similar studies that cited in this paper, which can be used in discussion
too. I suggest to expand this section and cite these two papers:
Pourhoseingholi MA, Hajizadeh E, Moghimi Dehkordi B, Safaee A, Abadi A, Zali
MR. Comparing Cox regression and parametric models for survival of patients
with gastric carcinoma. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2007 Jul-Sep;8(3):412-6.
Moghimi-Dehkordi B, Safaee A, Pourhoseingholi MA, Fatemi R, Tabeie Z, Zali
MR. Statistical comparison of survival models for analysis of cancer data. Asian
Pac J Cancer Prev. 2008 Jul-Sep;9(3):417-20.
2. Please check all reverences and the style of representing them according to
the journal. The name of authors in some references like ref number 3 and ref
number 16 were not right. The true style is:
Pourhoseingholi MA, Moghimi-Dehkordi B, Safaee A, Hajizadeh E, Solhpour A,
Zali MR. Prognostic factors in gastric cancer using log-normal censored
regression model. Indian J Med Res. 2009 Mar;129(3):262-7.
Pourhoseingholi MA, Hajizadeh E, Moghimi Dehkordi B, Safaee A, Abadi A, Zali
MR. Comparing Cox regression and parametric models for survival of patients
with gastric carcinoma. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2007 Jul-Sep;8(3):412-6.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-1 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Application of Weibull Model for Survival of Patients with Gastric Cancer
Version: 1Date:14 October 2010
Reviewer: Dianne Pulte
Reviewer's report:
Summary: The authors discuss the application of the Weibull model to determine
significance of various factors in a multivariate analysis. They conclude that the
Weibull model provides more accurate results than the Cox model.
Overall this is a nice piece of work with interesting implications for multivariate
analysis in cancer research.
Minor revisions:
1. The paper would benefit from being proofread by a native speaker of English.
Discretionary revisions:
2. Further discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of using the Weibull method
and the Cox method would be useful. For example in the first paragraph in the
discussion, the authors mention that it is necessary to check the underlying
assumptions in the Cox model. It would be useful to have examples of these
underlying assumptions and when they may interfere with obtaining a meaningful
result. For example, clarification of why the Weibull model found age to be a
significant factor while the Cox model did not may be helpful, especially for
physicians who are not well versed in statistics.
3. The authors mention that they did not find a significant correlation between
number of lymph nodes and survival, using either model. This is an unexpected
finding and clarification of why this might have been seen, if possible, would be
useful. Does this suggest a limitation to the model or some other factor?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230x-11-109 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Increased intestinal permeability and tight junction disruption by altered
expression and localization of occludin in a murine graft versus host disease
model
Version: 2Date:23 September 2011
Reviewer: Riccardo Troncone
Reviewer's report:
Thank you very much for having given to me the opportunity to review this paper.
I red the reviewers comments and the reply of the Authors. I think that the
specific issues raised by the reviewers have been properly faced. The referees
had, apart from specific issues, two main general concerns regarding the
originality of the observations and the suitability of the model chosen. Personally
I think that the observations reported in this paper add to the present knowledge
of the GI GvHR and are worthy to be published.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Review for 10.1186/1471-230x-11-106 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Rare Gallbladder Adenomyomatosis Presenting as Atypical Cholecystitis:
A Case Report
Version: 2Date:13 June 2011
Reviewer: Hans Herfarth
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting case of a not so commonly seen disorder. The authors
should modify the case report as delineated below.
Comments:
The findings during surgery are quite impressive as documented by figure 3. Why
were the gall bladder abnormalities not already seen on the ultrasound (as
discussed by the authors this is the gold standard for the diagnosis of gallbladder
adenomyomatosis) and what was the indication for the gallium scan? The
answers to these question should be incorporated in the manuscript.
Figure 4 can be omitted since it does not add significant information to the case.
The manuscript needs to be revised by a native English speaker.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230x-11-106 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Rare Gallbladder Adenomyomatosis Presenting as Atypical Cholecystitis:
A Case Report
Version: 2Date:25 June 2011
Reviewer: dinesh singhal
Reviewer's report:
Rare gallbladder adenomyomatosis presenting as atypical cholecystitis: A case
report
Adenomyomatosis of gallbladder is a common condition reported in up to 5% of
cholecystectomy specimens. This clinical entity frequently is an asymptomatic
incidental finding (or may present with occasional abdominal pain), has no
intrinsic malignant potential and usually requires no specific therapy. The primary
clinical significance of this condition is due to similarities at imaging with
gallbladder cancer.
The authors Sheng –Hong Lin report a patient of adenomyomatosis of
gallbladder with fever alone and no abdominal pain. Even as several already
known aspects of adenomyomatosis such as the classical findings on T2
weighted MRI images and Gallium 67 scan have been well described, on the
basis of association of fever alone, case report cannot be recommended for
publication especially when the haematological, biochemical and histological
parameters are indicative of an acute inflammatory pathology.
Also the manuscript is full of typographic / grammatical errors.
Level of interest: An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a
scientific/medical journal
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230x-11-106 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Rare Gallbladder Adenomyomatosis Presenting as Atypical Cholecystitis:
A Case Report
Version: 2Date:27 June 2011
Reviewer: Peush Sahni
Reviewer's report:
1. The discussion is long and can be shortened. The historical aspects and
nomenclature parts could be removed.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-146 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prognostic prediction across a gradient of total tumor volume in patients
with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing locoregional therapy
Version: 1Date:30 March 2010
Reviewer: Christian Toso
Reviewer's report:
This study is looking at predicting survival of patients with hepatocellular
carcinoma undergoing locoregional therapy with the use of Total Tumor Volume.
The study is well designed and the manuscript well written.
Several modifications are required:
- abstract: the authors state that TTV is a new parameter, while at least to papers
have been published on similar topics (for HCC and colo-rectal metastasis):
Ercolani et al. Arch Surg 2002 and Toso et al, Hepatology 2009
- page 6: please provide the end date of the survey.
- page 6: How many patients did have a biopsy?
- page 7: "Minimal values were set to 1.0 for calculation purposes." please be
more precise. Which values are you refering to?
- page 9: Adjusted survivals were assessed using the multivariable Cox
proportional hazards model. What were they adjusted for?
- page 10: "Distribution and association of TTV and number and size of tumor
nodule" The Total Tumor Volume is calculated based on tumor size and number.
As a consequence TTV will increase with larger or more numerous HCCs. This
paragraph, as well as Tbale 2 do not bring significant information. I would
suggest removing them.
- page 10: The data provided in Figure 1 is very interesting. Did the authors find
simiar relationship between TTV and histological grade? (in the patients with
biopsy)
- page 11: Please clarify: was TTV an independent predictor of survival in the
multivariate Cx analysis model?
- page 11: Please compare the CLIP and the modified CLIP scores to predict
survival. Which one is more accurate?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-146 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prognostic prediction across a gradient of total tumor volume in patients
with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing locoregional therapy
Version: 1Date:23 April 2010
Reviewer: Luisa Benvegnu'
Reviewer's report:
In this study Authors evaluate the prognostic value of a new parameter, that is
total tumor volume, in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing
locoregional therapy. This is an important question in patients with HCC and
chronic liver disease, and the new prognostic predictor proposed is quite simple
for current clinical utilization. However there are several methodological problems
concerning study population and data analysis.
1. Study population is not comparable. In particular is not correct to compare
patients submitted to RF of PEI/PAI versus patients submitted to TACE, as this
latter treatment procedure is considered less effective than PEI or RF. Moreover
patients submitted to TACE have a more advanced HCC than patients treated
with PEI/RF.
2. For this reason, the role of treatment procedure should be tested both in
univariate and in multivariate survival analysis.
3. How HCC therapy efficacy has been tested?
4. Is not clear if vascular invasion means portal vein thrombosis. This should be
specified.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-146 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prognostic prediction across a gradient of total tumor volume in patients
with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing locoregional therapy
Version: 2Date:17 June 2010
Reviewer: Christian Toso
Reviewer's report:
The authors have replied to my comments/suggestions with satisfaction.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-145 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Association between HLA-DRB1 alleles polymorphism and hepatocellular
carcinoma:A Meta-analysis
Version: 5Date:23 July 2010
Reviewer: Shankarkumar Umapathy
Reviewer's report:
The article is written fine and can be accepted
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-145 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Association between HLA-DRB1 alleles polymorphism and hepatocellular
carcinoma:A Meta-analysis
Version: 5Date:6 August 2010
Reviewer: gilberto vargas-alarcon
Reviewer's report:
Considering that HLA-DRB1 allele polymorphisms have been reported to be
associated with hepatocellular carcinoma susceptibility with inconsistent results,
in the present work the authors explored whether specific HLA-DRB1 alleles
(DRB1*07, DRB1*12, DRB1*15) contribute to the susceptibility of hepatocellular
carcinoma by performing meta-analysis with the previously published data. This
is an interesting analysis with some limitations that are considered by the
authors.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-145 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Association between HLA-DRB1 alleles polymorphism and hepatocellular
carcinoma:A Meta-analysis
Version: 8Date:9 October 2010
Reviewer: Adriana Rojas-Villarraga
Reviewer's report:
I have checked all the authors’ corrections and answers. The changes they have
made cover all the bases including everything I recommended and additional
data. I believe the article is much better and ready for publication.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-144 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Trends in Liver Transplantation for Primary Biliary Cirrhosis in The
Netherlands 1988-2008
Version: 1Date:28 April 2010
Reviewer: helena Isoniemi
Reviewer's report:
It would valuable for this manuscript if the authors can include the overall
incidence of PBC in Netherlands during the two study periods. Is it remained the
same and only the incidence of tansplantation in PBC is decreased od is the
incidence in transplantation decreased due to decreased overall incidence of
PBC
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-144 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Trends in Liver Transplantation for Primary Biliary Cirrhosis in The
Netherlands 1988-2008
Version: 1Date:13 May 2010
Reviewer: Wolf O Bechstein
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. The manuscript and tables are inconsistent with regard to the time periods
studied and analysed. In the abstract as well as in the Manuscript, the two
decades are stated as 1988-1998 and 1998 - 2008, while in the table the
decades are separated as 1988-1997 and 1998 - 2008. In the "patients and
methods" section the time period is stated as "all patients who underwent LTX in
the Netherlands from January 1988 until January 2008". Either patients in 1998
have been counted twice, which would be a serious flaw, or this is just a misprint.
In any case, two precise decades would be 1.1.1988 - 31.12.1997 and 1.1.1998 -
31.12.2007. Notably, in the figures no case is recorded for 2008.
2. Five patients died on the watiing list, and these only during the second
deacde. Waiting time was longer during the second decade. If the 5 patients that
died had been transplanted, the statistical analysis given the small numbers
would perhaps be different. One might argue that - for whatever reasons - the
health care system during the second decade was not as effective as during the
first decade in delivering liver transplantation to affected individuals with PBC in a
timely manner.
Minor essential revision:
1. Page 5: spell out SBP - spontaneous bacterial peritonitis
Discretionary revisions:
you may consider briefly explaining "Schirmer's Test" e.g.(schirmer's test (for
assesing tear production to diagnose xerophthalmia))
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-144 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Trends in Liver Transplantation for Primary Biliary Cirrhosis in The
Netherlands 1988-2008
Version: 2Date:20 August 2010
Reviewer: Wolf O Bechstein
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for adressing the points I had raised during my initial review.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have nö competing interest.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-143 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Relationship of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate with
markers of hepatic function in cirrhotic patients
Version: 1Date:31 January 2010
Reviewer: Luis Olmedilla
Reviewer's report:
Hemodynamic alterations are associated with overall survival of cirrhotic patients.
This paper study whether 24 hours ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate
variations are associated with markers of liver disease severity.
Major revisions
I am not clear on the practicality of a 24 hours ambulatory BP and HR measuring
to evaluate a poor liver function. It’s easier to measure classical biochemical
markers in a blood sample.
A critical analysis of the findings is required in discussion:
- All the correlation factors are low. The best is 0.56 (office HR- renin). This can
be translated in a coefficient of determination r2 of 0,3136: 31% of the variation in
HR can be explained by the renin variation. The correlation can be statistically
significant but showing a weak association between the two variables. (Pace NL.
Research design and statistics. In Clnical Anesthesia, Edited by Barash PG,
Cullen BF and Stoelting RK. Philadelphia : Lippincott Company. Philadelphia,
1989: 45-68).
- The differences between the groups A and B, even significant, are very small
(DBP office visit 1: 81 vs. 73, office visit 2: 79 vs. 72, asleep ambulatory 66 vs.
61). Why do the authors think there is not a significant difference in the HR?
- With the showed results, do the authors consider useful to measure the BP and
HR to evaluate liver function?
- If a clear relation was showed, would the authors recommend to evaluate BP
and HR ambulatory measurement in cirrhotic patients?
Methods:
It’s difficult to conclude something in Child C patients with only 4 cases. You
must exclude them or include more cases.
Minor essential revisions
References:
15: Tripathi
25: …… Heagerty AM, Kjeldsen ……
Tables
Table 2 error in edition: SBP in office visit 1
Table 3, 4 and 5: Correlation factors
Discretionary revisions
I think diabetes patients must be excluded because they can have an autonomic
dysfunction that can alter the hemodynamic results.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interest's below.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-143 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Relationship of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate with
markers of hepatic function in cirrhotic patients
Version: 1Date:18 April 2010
Reviewer: Flemming Bendtsen
Reviewer's report:
The authors performed office and 24 H ambulatory BP and heart rate
measurements in 51 patients with cirrhosis and looked for correlations to
biochemical values and levels of vasoactive hormones. The present is study is
solely a descriptional study and not surprisingly only rather weak correlations
mainly to heart rate were observed.
Major compulsory revisions.
The two groups are not matched according to etiology of cirrhosis, since only
30% of CHILD A patients have alcohol as etiology, while patients with more
severe disease in 60% have alcohol as etiology. Since alcohol by itself may
affect cardiac function,patients need to be stratified according to cause of liver
disease.
I wonder how patients were selected. Were they consquetively recruited (51
patients recruited out of 60 in 30 months?)
Minor essential revisions
Blood samples page 6, line 5, drawn and not drown.
Page 8 top. It is not surprising, that there is a difference between the two groups
with respect to CHILD and MELD score, since the two groups were defined by
this. Can be deleted from the text.
Table 2. Top should be identical with table 1, dividing patients in Group A and
and not in group a and BC. There is problems with the right margen in print.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interest' below.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-143 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Relationship of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate with
markers of hepatic function in cirrhotic patients
Version: 2Date:19 June 2010
Reviewer: Matthias J. Bahr
Reviewer's report:
No additional comments to the previous review.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-143 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Relationship of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate with
markers of hepatic function in cirrhotic patients
Version: 2Date:28 June 2010
Reviewer: Luis Olmedilla
Reviewer's report:
- Minor essential revisions:
The authors must add "hemodynamic" in the text in the Discussion: "We
hypothesized that because hemodynamic parameters such as low ..... more
reliable index of liver dysfunction than the conventional HEMODYNAMIC office
assessment" to clarify it, because it is difficult to think that BP or HR
measurement can be more reliable index of liver dysfunction than THE
CONVENTIONAL ASSESSMENT.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare thar I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-141 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Primary repair of colon injuries: a clinical study of nonselective aproach
Version: 1Date:21 December 2009
Reviewer: Andrew Hill
Reviewer's report:
I enjoyed reading this paper but it suffers very severely from poor English and
numerous spelling mistakes. This paper must be rewritten with the help of a
native English speaker prior to it being taken any further. If this is done I would
be happy to reread the manuscript and comment on it further.
In my opinion the paper seems to be well conceived and is of relevance to the
surgical community.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-141 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Primary repair of colon injuries: a clinical study of nonselective aproach
Version: 1Date:30 December 2009
Reviewer: Hayrullah Derici
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript is well prepared, and study design reasonable, statistical
methods are appropriate, conclusions are based on the convincing statistical
analysis. The results and information conveyed in the article might contribute to
the knowledge of colon injuries management.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-141 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Primary repair of colon injuries: clinical study of non selective approach
Version: 2Date:22 February 2010
Reviewer: Andrew Hill
Reviewer's report:
While the English requires some further text editing it is much improved.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-142 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Ectopic papilla in the duodenal bulb and duodenal stenosis: an overlooked
association with clinical, diagnostic and therapeutic implications
Version: 2Date:3 August 2010
Reviewer: Everson Artifon
Reviewer's report:
The issue is very interesting. However, I think the number of patients is a little bit
higher than it is shown in the literature. Please, is it possible we know how it
occured?
The english text should be corrected by a native colleague to improve and get an
international publication.
The definitions are confusing and should be improved.
New tables should be presented to the readers to facilitate
Some references are not cited in the text.Please, make it sure about accuracy of
data that was wrote.
The title is big and confused.
What is the relevance of this manuscript information to the readers?
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-142 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Ectopic papilla in the duodenal bulb and duodenal stenosis: an overlooked
association with clinical, diagnostic and therapeutic implications
Version: 2Date:13 August 2010
Reviewer: Attila Csendes
Reviewer's report:
1.- Define clearly what do you mean by ectopic opening of the CBD into the
duodenal bulb.
a.- in which portion of the duodenal bulb?
b.- what happens with Wirsung and Santonini ducts’
2.- Instead of “There is” it should be “there are few reports”.
3.- Instead of “subject” say “topic”.
4.- It is not clear why male predominance means genetic abnormality.
5.- This reviewer with a personal experience of over 20.000 patients with
gallstones or common bile duct stones has never seen such an anomaly. How
could you diagnose this very rare entity in 96 patients in less than 4 years?
Methods
1.- This is a retrospective analysis and should be clearly stated as so.
2.- If there was a stenosis which did not allow to pass the duodenoscope, how
could you see no evidence of papilla structure in the second or third portion?
3.- What do you mean by “duodenoscope was replaced with a diagnostic one”?
What does it mean?
4.- What do you mean by patients with simple gastroenterostomy? Why was
done this surgical procedure?
5.- How did you know that a Billroth II patient or gastroenterostomy patient had
an ectopic opening of the CBD? In Billroth II patients the duodenal bulb is usually
excised.
Results
1.- How many patients had gallstones?
2.- What do you mean by “operation” biliary problem in table 1?
What is jaundice to roule out?
3.- If 71/74 patients had choledocholithiasis, what happened at the gallbladder?
4.- There was no complication after ERCP?
Discussion
1.- All hypothesis concerning development of duodenal ulcer are completely
wrong. The bicarbonate of the pancreatic juice has never favored recurrent
duodenal ulcer.
2.- Why do you state that presence of pancreatic secretion and bile are
necessary for the development of deformities ulcer and stenosis if in the normal
position in every human being this never occurs?
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-142 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Ectopic opening of the common bile duct and duodenal stenosis: an
overlooked association
Version: 3Date:21 October 2010
Reviewer: Everson Artifon
Reviewer's report:
I think the answers are appropriate and then I suggest,at that time, to be
approved.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-142 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Ectopic opening of the common bile duct and duodenal stenosis: an
overlooked association
Version: 3Date:22 October 2010
Reviewer: Attila Csendes
Reviewer's report:
Dear Sirs.
I have reviewed carefully the revised manuscript, and I which has been corrected
according to all questions and comments. It is now suitable for publication. I have
no further comments.
Very sincerely yours.
Prof. Dr. Attila Csendes, FACS(Hon)
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-140 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Reduction of novel circulating long-chain fatty acids and colorectal cancer
patients is independent of tumor burden and correlates with age.
Version: 1Date:18 October 2010
Reviewer: Huanlong Qin
Reviewer's report:
This study addressed an important topic. The scientific soundness is high, and
also intrerest to the readers. However, the language is poor throughout and
requires proof-reading with native speaker before resubmission. Overall, this
lessened the enthusiasm for the manuscript.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-140 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Reduction of novel circulating long-chain fatty acids and colorectal cancer
patients is independent of tumor burden and correlates with age.
Version: 1Date:20 October 2010
Reviewer: Patrizia P. Ferroni
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript by Ritchie and colleagues reports the clinical significance of
hPULCFA C28H46O4 (CRC-446) in colorectal cancer (CRC). The main findings
of the study are that CRC-446 levels are not affected by conventional CRC
treatment and inversely correlate with age, which suggest that reduced serum
CRC-446 levels likely exist prior to the development of CRC. Authors conclude
that extrapolating their results to a screening scenario it would imply a significant
reduction of colonoscopies and an increase in CRC detection rates over the life
of the subject. Overall, the article is complete, fully comprehensive to the reader
and conveys a clear-cut message. The aim is interesting and well defined,
methods are well documented without being over-detailed, data are sound, the
discussion and conclusions are well balanced and adequately supported by the
data presented. Limitations of the work are clearly stated. I have no major
comments on this well presented paper, except few discretionary revisions:
Abstract
- Report the number of patients in the American cohort
- Report on the distribution of CRC-446 in CRC vs. control subjects
Results
- Although CRC-446 levels were already reported to be reduced in pre-treatment
CRC patients compared to disease-free subjects, I believe it would be useful to
have a brief description of pre-treatment values in comparison with controls
(Caucasian vs. Japanese). I acknowledge this is only a confirmatory finding, but
a direct comparison, instead of single reference to Figures 1 and 2 might
increase clearness for the reader.
Discussion
- Reference to other previously reported hPULCFAs, CRC-448 and CRC-450, is
redundant.
- Do the Authors have any information in terms of cost-benefit?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-139 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:A shift from distal to proximal neoplasia in the colon: a decade of polyps
and CRC in Italy.
Version: 1Date:24 November 2009
Reviewer: Yutaka Atomi
Reviewer's report:
This paper is not suitable for publication in our journal due to the following
reasons.
1) There are lots of misspelling and grammatical errors in this manuscript. The
authors should have asked native speakers to check their work before
submission.
2) Was there any necessity to show the annual data separately in Tables and
figures?
3) This was a single institutional study during a relatively short period of time. As
the authors commented in Discussion, this study contained lots of bias in its
design.
4) When an ordinary adenoma or an early cancer in the right colon and an
advanced adenoma or cancer in the left colon were located synchronously, the
former lesion was neglected and the latter lesion only was analyzed according to
the study protocol. This study design may obscure actual change of distribution
patterns, and may lead to wrong conclusions.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-139 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:A shift from distal to proximal neoplasia in the colon: a decade of polyps
and CRC in Italy.
Version: 1Date:1 December 2009
Reviewer: Jose Martinez-Penuela
Reviewer's report:
Having finished my evaluation of the referred article, I would like to make some
comments and suggestions
Comments
- The subject of the article is an interesting one, it might have a relationship with
possible changes in screening programs and has been evaluated in scientific
works for some years now with conflicting results.
- The author has included a very high number of cases (3087), making the power
of statistical analysis a very high one.
- A high number of variables is analyzed, and the most important variables
related to the patient and to the tumour are included.
- The author also makes a good comparison of their results with other articles on
the same subject, and especially with the studies made within their own country.
- Bibliographic references are complete and actual.
Suggestions
It might have been interesting, as the authors indicate, to have had the chance to
define the characteristics of the colonoscopies in which the lesions were detected
(use of sedation, completeness of the colonoscopy, quality of the bowel
preparation in both groups). All these parameters have been related to a higher
detection of lesions and make for a much better endoscopical evaluation of the
proximal colon.
Considering that all adenomas were revised, serrated adenomas could have
been included in the study (because of their possible tendency to a more
proximal location) The quality of the study could also have been enhanced by
knowing data about the family history of the patients, in order to discard their
possible inclusion in risk groups (such as adenomatous polyposis or colo-rectal
carcinoma), but the author already describes this point as a limitation of the
study.
There is a typing mistake in the text, just before the conclusion. When talking
about high-risk population, patients with IRRITABLE BOWEL DISEASE are
included. I believe the authors really intended to say INFLAMMATORY BOWEL
DISEASE (which is truly included in the high-risk population)
In summary, I believe this is a good article and that it should be published. There
could be limitations in this study, but the author knows, accepts and describes
them, and states in the conclusion that these limitations should be considered
when planning or carrying out further studies on this subject
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-139 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:A shift from distal to proximal neoplasia in the colon: a decade of polyps
and CRC in Italy.
Version: 3Date:28 March 2010
Reviewer: Yutaka Atomi
Reviewer's report:
These authors should reply to this reviewer’s comments more precisely.
1)(minor) Was there any necessity to show the annual data separately in Tables
and Figures?
The main point of this comment was “Why did the authors describe the data year
by year?” It’s too detailed, and didn’t make sense.
2)(major) When an ordinary adenoma or an early cancer in the right colon and an
advanced adenoma or cancer in the left colon were located synchronously, the
former lesion was neglected and the latter lesion only was analyzed according to
the study protocol. This study design may obscure actual change of distribution
patterns, and may lead to wrong conclusions.
According to the study protocol, this case was classified as having a left-sided
lesion, although he/she had a right-sided lesion simultaneously. This was this
reviewer’s concern.
This reviewer will be pleased to review the revised manuscript again if the
authors respond correctly.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-139 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:A shift from distal to proximal neoplasia in the colon: a decade of polyps
and CRC in Italy.
Version: 5Date:21 July 2010
Reviewer: Yutaka Atomi
Reviewer's report:
I feel sorry that the authors did not answer my questions completely.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-138 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:The gene-reduction effect of chromosomal losses detected in gastric
cancers
Version: 1Date:31 July 2010
Reviewer: Rommel Burbano
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript by Hong et al. describes the correlation of the level of loss of
heterozigosity (LOH) and the cell-adverse effects in gastric cancers of different
histological types. The manuscript is well written and the results relevant,
however some points should have to be clarified before its publication.
Minor Essentials Revisions:
-The authors said in page 6, last paragraph, and along manuscript that the eight
cancer-associated chromosomes examined had a low density of genes and no
stomach-specific genes. So, why those chromosomes were chosen? The authors
should clarify this point.
-The authors describe transcript analyses in the “Results” section, however
nothing is mentioned in the “Methods” section. Even if the authors used data
from previous papers, it is important to mention this in the “Methods” section.
-The authors cited 116 samples in the “Methods” section, but in the first line of
“Results” they cited 118.
-The authors should explain the relationship between 17p loss in the
intestinal-type cancers and 13q loss in the diffuse-type cancers. Is there any
cancer-related gene in the cited regions that could explain that?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests