JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-82 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Barrett's esophagus and the risk of obstructive sleep apnea: A case-control
study
Version: 3Date:10 April 2013
Reviewer: Össur Ingi Emilsson
Reviewer's report:
The authors have reacted positively on my former revisions, and corrected a few
misundersandings I had. The manuscript is now much clearer and makes for an
interesting reading. I have no concrete suggestions for revisions, only two
thoughts under discretionary revisions.
Major Compulsory Revisions
None.
Minor Essential Revisions
None.
Discretionary revisions
1. I am still curious about how the follow-up study of this pilot study will be, but
that is perhaps out of the scope of this article to describe? Or is that what the last
sentence of the conclusions is about?
2. My misunderstanding regarding the statistics in table 1 (where I misread the
data on sex and ethnicity), probably stems from a misreading of the numbers, as
I am more used to seeing data of this sort presented as „%“ or „% (n)“, rather
than „n (%)“. Of course, this is just a matter of taste. However, with this setup,
might it be clearer to write for example „White - n (%)“?
I have no further suggestions for revision.
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-13-81 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Transglucosidase improves the gut microbiota profile of type 2 diabetes
mellitus patients
Version: 3Date:19 January 2013
Reviewer: Toshio Watanabe
Reviewer's report:
The authors examined effect of transglucosidase (TGD) on the gut microbiota in
patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. They reported that
significant decreases in Clostridium cluster IVand Clostridium subcluster XIVa
components were observed in the T2DM patients compared with the healthy
individuals, whereas the Lactobacillales and Bifidobacterium populations
significantly increased in the T2DM patients They also demonstrated that after 12
month-treatment with TGD increased, the Bacteroides to Firmicutes ratio. There
are some new findings in this manuscript, but the data are insufficient to support
the author’s conclusions.
1. No data on body weight and blood glucose (or HbA1c) level after TGD
treatment were presented in the manuscript. These data were very important and
should be reported. Furthermore, the authors should examine the relation
between changes in body weight or blood glucose level and the gut microbiota.
2. Based on the data by cluster analyses, the authors described that TGD
modulated the gut microbiota profile in patients with T2DM. Were the changes in
the microbiota by TGD statistically significant? In other words, did the author
evaluate the differences in bacterial diversity between before and after TGD
treatment?
3. The authors should add the data of placebo group in Figure 3 which shows the
fecal bacteria structure before and after treatment.
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 have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-81 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Transglucosidase improves the gut microbiota profile of type 2 diabetes
mellitus patients
Version: 3Date:26 January 2013
Reviewer: Antonio Gasbarrini
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting, well written paper assessing gut microbiota changes in
diabetes patients after the treatment with transglucosidase.
Major compulsory revisions
1 In the Subjects and Methods section the Auhtors stated that the enrollment
criteria and study design were previously described. Are the patients enrolled in
this study the same of reference 1? Please specify and add more details about
the study design and the enrollment criteria.
2 The Authors did not provide any explication about the evaluation of the sample
size, about the number oh healthy controls and about the choice of
tranglucosidase dosage. Please provide them.
3 The Authors should describe what kind of diabetes medication (including the
dosage) are used throughout the study.
4 In the Results section the Authors did not specify the difference in
Bacteroides/Firmicutes ratio between diabetic patients and healthy controls, but
in the Discussion section They stated that smaller Firmicutes populations were
observed in T2DM patients than in the healthy population. Please provide more
details.
5 The major limitation of this study is that the Authors dis not show any
correlation between gut microbiota modification and metabolic state of the
patients. Does modification of gut microbiota correlate with reduced levels of
HbA1c?
Minor essential revisions
6 Please provide a table showing individual results for any patients and not only
mean values and HbA1c levels before and after treatment.
Discretionary revisions
7 The abstract should specify how many healthy controls the study included
8 In the Subjects and Methods section the Authors stated that patients received
treatment after every meal. Please specify that patients received treatment 3
times a day after main meals.
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-13-81 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Transglucosidase improves the gut microbiota profile of type 2 diabetes
mellitus patients: A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study
Version: 6Date:2 March 2013
Reviewer: Toshio Watanabe
Reviewer's report:
Quality of the paper has been improved.
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-13-81 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Transglucosidase improves the gut microbiota profile of type 2 diabetes
mellitus patients: A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study
Version: 6Date:12 March 2013
Reviewer: Antonio Gasbarrini
Reviewer's report:
The Authors adequately answered to previous major and minor revisions, thus
the paper improved in quality and it could be published.
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-13-80 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Low prevalence of 'classical' microscopic colitis but evidence of
microscopic inflammation in Asian patients with diarrhoea predominant irritable
bowel syndrome
Version: 2Date:3 November 2012
Reviewer: Greger Lindberg
Reviewer's report:
The authors have investigated the presence of microscopic colitis in Malaysian
patients with IBS-D in comparison with convenience controls (patients without
symptoms otherwise undergoing colonoscopy). They found that the prevalence
of 'classical' microscopic colitis was low both in patients and controls but that
patients exhibited an increased prevalence of unspecific colitis. In order to
determine the merits of this manuscript it is necessary to clarify some specific
items:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The title refers to 'classical' microscopic colitis and the authors state that this
was >20 IELs/100 epithelial cells "in conjunction with surface epithelial dmage".
Please give a reference to these criteria for 'classical' microscopic colitis.
2. The patient studied a consecutive series of patients who met the Rome-III
criteria for IBS-D but little or nothing is mentioned about selection factors for this
population. Had these patients been investigated at primary care level before
being referred? How many had undergone colonoscopy before coming to
UMMC? If none had had a colonoscopy before, this is vital information that
should be included in the manuscript. If a proportion of the patients had
undergone colonoscopy with biopsy before it may become necessary to divide
them into colonoscopy-naïve and previously endoscoped patients.
Minor Essential Revisions
3. In the discussion the authors discuss their findings in relation to those reported
by Falodia et al. According to the latter classification 12/74 patients in the present
study had microscopic colitis. This is somewhat confusing and I find it difficult to
make up my mind whether microscopic colitis was present or not in a significant
proportion of Malaysian patients with IBS-D.
4. The sentence "Three cases had involvement of the rectum, four cases had
involvement of the sigmoid or descending colon but in four cases inflammation
was seen only distal to the splenic flexure only" is difficult to understand. First,
there is more words only than needed, and secondly, I think it should be
"proximal" rather than "distal".
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-80 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Low prevalence of 'classical' microscopic colitis but evidence of
microscopic inflammation in Asian patients with diarrhoea predominant irritable
bowel syndrome
Version: 2Date:13 November 2012
Reviewer: Arjuna De silva
Reviewer's report:
There are a few major issues with this article. Firstly the authors say that one of
the objectives of the study is to find the prevalence of microscopic colitis in IBS-D
patients. This is not possible in a single centre study.
The fact that non specific colitis is present in IBS-D is not new. De Silva et al
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2012 ;47:619-24, described this and have included
cytokine data as well. Strangely this paper is not even referenced although it is
methodologically a similar study.
Diverticulitis is also a cause of inflammation and the authors need to mention
that.
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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-80 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Low prevalence of 'classical' microscopic colitis but evidence of
microscopic inflammation in Asian patients with diarrhoea predominant irritable
bowel syndrome
Version: 3Date:3 January 2013
Reviewer: Greger Lindberg
Reviewer's report:
The authors have substantially improved their manuscript and my impression is
that they have adequately responded to my previous comments. A few more but
minor comments can be made:
Minor essential revisions:
1. The reference list has not been formatted according to BMC style. Year of
publication is missing in all references. There should be a space between the :
after the last author and the title of the article, and there should be a space
between . after the article title and the journal abbreviation. The latter should be
followed by the year of publication.
2. The title refers to "diarrhoea predominant irritable bowel syndrome" which is a
term that was used in the Rome-II classification of functional bowel disorders, but
in the article the authors use the term "irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea"
which is the correct term in Rome-III classification. I think the title should be
changed to reflect the fact that patients were classified according to Rome-III.
Discretionary Revision (perhaps for discussion):
3. This is perhaps more a comment than a question that can be answered: When
doing a scientific study on a population with the label "IBS-D" it is important to
understand under what circumstances this label was attached to patients. If it
sufficed to fulfil the symptom criteria for IBS and IBS-D and no investigations had
been done the population would include patients with celiac disease, bile salt
malabsorption, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, collagenous colitis and perhaps
a number of other causes for similar symptoms. Although it has been argued that
it is in general safe to make the diagnosis of IBS positively by using symptom
criteria alone, the reality is, and this has been shown in a number of studies that
many diseases can mimic IBS. For practical purposes, perhaps the only
important question is if the proportion of cases with an organic cause is small
enough to be neglected. In the present study all patients were colonoscopy
naïve. How many organic causes of IBS-like symptoms had been excluded? Was
the number of patients with collagenous colits (1/74) small enough to be
neglected as an organic and treatable cause of IBS-like symptoms?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-80 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Low prevalence of 'classical' microscopic colitis but evidence of
microscopic inflammation in Asian patients with diarrhoea predominant irritable
bowel syndrome
Version: 3Date:20 January 2013
Reviewer: Arjuna De silva
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
No major revisions now.
Minor Essential Revisions
No revisions needed
Discretionary Revisions
Non
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-13-78 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopist specialty is associated with colonoscopy quality
Version: 2Date:25 January 2013
Reviewer: Alain Demers
Reviewer's report:
Please see attached document.
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 have no cnflict of interest to declare
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-78 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopist specialty is associated with colonoscopy quality
Version: 3Date:7 April 2013
Reviewer: Salah Mahmud
Reviewer's report:
My comments were addressed by the authors. Thanks,
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-13-78 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopist specialty is associated with colonoscopy quality
Version: 3Date:15 April 2013
Reviewer: Alain Demers
Reviewer's report:
I am satisfied of the modifications that have been made to the paper. I have only
one additional comment:
In the Methods section the authors say “Screening was defined as no history of
large bowel symptoms (rectal bleeding, unintentional weight loss, abdominal
pain) in the past 6 months, and no history of gastrointestinal conditions (polyp,
CRC diagnosis, inflammatory bowel disease, and previous bowel surgery)”. This
definition is not entirely clear since screening is usually defined as a number of
screening procedures (FOBT, colonoscopy, etc.) within a certain time frame.
Here, the authors rather talk about the history of symptoms or diagnosis, which
seems to me closer to inclusion criteria. Also, there is no time reference for the
history of gastrointestinal conditions (is it 6 months as for the history of bowel
symptoms?). Please clarify (maybe it is just the word screening that need to be
replaced).
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-13-79 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Activity of Corilagin to treat animal model of acute cholestasis by
anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidative pathway
Version: 1Date:5 December 2012
Reviewer: Bo Yan
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revision:
In this study, effects of corilagin on inflammation and oxidation were investigated
in animal model of acute cholestasis. Several physiological and biochemical
parameters were examined within 3 days post-administration of corilagin.
According to these results, authors concluded that Corilagin is a potential
component to relieve cholestasis. In general, this is a preliminary and short-term
study, which was well conducted. My major concern is the duration of
observation. Long-term effects may provide strong support for their conclusions.
Minor points:
1. In the Instruction section, please explain why corilagin was chosen in this
study.
2. In this study, 90 animals were divided into 5 groups, which indicated that each
group had less than 20 animals. The results would be more convincing with more
animals in each group.
3. Please clarify each group in detail in the Results section.
4. It is suggested that all author go over the whole manuscript to correct English
writings as a group.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-79 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidative effects of corilagin in a rat model of
acute cholestasis
Version: 2Date:15 February 2013
Reviewer: Thomas Schreiter
Reviewer's report:
The report will be in the pdf-attachment since all character-formattings like italics
or cross-outs will disappear when entering here.
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-13-77 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Age-of-onset-dependent Influence of NOD2/CARD15 gene variants on
Disease behaviour and treatment in Crohn's disease
Version: 1Date:18 November 2012
Reviewer: silvia vidal
Reviewer's report:
In the present manuscript, authors analyzed the association between the
presence of NOD2 variants and clinical phenotype of pediatric onset Crohn’s
disease patients. They particularly focused on osteoporosis and growth failure
because delayed growth is a well established feature of pediatric onset CD.
NOD2 variants have already been associated with markers of disease severity
and specific phenotypes (ileocolitis) in other pediatric-onset CD cohorts. Other
authors have reported that NOD2 genotype was not correlated with growth
retardation or growth failure. Lower mass index and higher PCDAI have also
been reported in patients with NOD2 variants.
Some of the associations have already been published in other cohorts.
However, the originality of the manuscript is based on the association between
bone mass density/osteoporosis and NOD2 variants. The number of patients was
not enough for a complete study of each three NOD2 variants. However,
grouping the three NOD2 variants allowed them to reach significant conclusions.
In order to improve the quality and rigor of the manuscript, I would like to suggest
the following comments:
Major compulsory revisions:
1) Authors indicated differences between carriers of NOD2 variants and wild type
patients in the text results. However, some of these differences were not
statistically significant (underweight at time of diagnosis, longer duration,..).
2) According to the legend of Figure 2, BMI was only available from 49 of
patients. How many were wild type or NOD2 variant?. There were visible
differences in the graph but they were not statistically significant. A very small
number of patients in one of the groups could explain this apparent contradiction.
3) The authors have not clarified the impact of NOD2 polymorphisms towards
osteoporosis. They have only analyzed the impact of several clinical aspects in
BMD, regardless of NOD2 (page 10).
4) In Figure 5, response to therapy was evaluated according to age onset.
However, the analysis in the other figures (other clinical parameters) was the %
of pediatric or adult onset patients. Two different methods of analysis could
complicate the interpretation of results. I would suggest a similar evaluation for
therapy (separating pediatric and adult onset).
Minor essential revisions:
Table 1) at the title of the Table, authors indicated 203 patients instead of 201
Table 2) some results were expressed differently. i.e. 22(35%) and 25/34%
Figure 1) Authors should indicate at the figure (not only legend) which graph is
pediatric or adult onset (it would facilitate the comprehension)
Discretionary revisions:
Discussion could be reduced
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-13-77 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Age-of-onset-dependent Influence of NOD2/CARD15 gene variants on
Disease behaviour and treatment in Crohn's disease
Version: 2Date:14 January 2013
Reviewer: Francis Vasseur
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript entitled " Age-of-onset-dependent Influence of NOD2/CARD15
gene variants on Disease behaviour and treatment in Crohn's disease" submitted
by Carsten Posovszky et al. aims at evaluating the influence of NOD2 gene
variants in disease behavior and treatment of pediatric and adult-onset Crohn’s
disease, has been amended by the authors.
The questions suggestions and comments have been taken into account by the
authors. Some Minor Essential Revisions remain.
#1 In the sentence "In this retrospective single center study in a tertiary center we
report high prevalence of patients with NOD2 variant alleles with 44% in the
pediatric- and 42% in adult-onset CD. The frequency of NOD2 variants in our
cohort is similar to other European pediatric multicenter cohort studies with a
prevalence of 35 upto 45.6% {Lacher, 2010 #19;de Ridder, 2007 #72;Sun, 2003
#82}." The first part of the sentence reports a frequency of patients and the
second part of the sentence (beginning with " The frequency of NOD2
variants...") sounds like an allelic frequency although it seems a genotype
frequency. This kind of confusion should be corrected.
#2 The previous confusion in mind of the authors as reported in my #1 is evident
in the authors response letter. To the previous #41 they answered " Indeed, we
compared the NOD2 variant allele frequency but we did not found a statistical
difference between the two groups." and refered to allelic frequency although
they seem to mean "patients with variant allele?", indeed in the "change in the
manuscript" they now use a correct formulation with " the presence of two NOD2
mutant allele was found more frequent in the pediatric-onset CD patients" which
refers to patients and thus to genotype frequencies and not allelic frequencies.
The authors must be aware of this mistakes and should not confoung between
allelic and genotype frequencies.
#3 In the legend of supplemental figure 1, why did the authors do not add the
word "allele" to the "patients with NOD2 variant" although they wrote "NOD2
wild-type alleles" just after?
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-13-77 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Age-of-onset-dependent Influence of NOD2/CARD15 gene variants on
Disease behaviour and treatment in Crohn's disease
Version: 2Date:22 January 2013
Reviewer: Maria Francisca Gonzalez-Escribano
Reviewer's report:
I have reviewed the revised version of the manuscript entitled “Age of onset
dependent influence of NOD2/CARD15 gene variants on disease behaviour and
treatment in Crohn´s disease” by Posovszky et al. I have also read the response
of the authors to reviewers.
The authors have made a big effort to meet the different questiones raised and to
improve the original manuscript. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the main problems
persist. Thus, the most original point of the manuscript (BMD variants /
osteoporosis and NOD2) is lost among other results and comparisons.
Other questions:
1. Taking into account the sample size, it is difficult to extract conclusions with
the type of analysis performed and the number of variables included. Likely some
of the variables are not independent why authors did not performed amultivariate
analysis?
2. In the section “Pediatric-onset CD patients….” of the Results (page 10) the
numbers of the Figures seem to be erroneous
3. Authors suggest a trend of patients with variants of NOD2 towards low BMD
but the frequency of patients with two variants is the same among patients with
low BMD as among patients with normal BMD
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-13-77 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Age-of-onset-dependent Influence of NOD2 gene variants on Disease
behaviour and treatment in Crohn's disease
Version: 3Date:21 March 2013
Reviewer: Maria Francisca Gonzalez-Escribano
Reviewer's report:
No comments
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 interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-75 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Predictors of persistent symptoms and reduced quality of life in treated
coeliac disease patients: a large cross-sectional study
Version: 2Date:27 February 2013
Reviewer: Umberto UV Volta
Reviewer's report:
All the issues raised have been answered and the Authors have added to the text
all the information requested.
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-13-76 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:T.E.A. Study, Three days Ertapenem versus three days
Ampicillin-sulbactam
Version: 2Date:29 February 2012
Reviewer: Vitaliy Poylin
Reviewer's report:
Authors present a paper on effect of different antibiotic regiment on
peri-operative infectious complications. They should be commended for trying to
address a difficult and definitely understudied question of duration of antibiotic
regiment. I think the most significant outcome of this study is reduction is
superficial infections on Ertapenem. This studies confirms a few recent reports
from colorectal literature on use of this antibiotic and could have a significant
effect on changing peri-operative antibiotic regiment.
However, there are a few issues that need to be addressed.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1.The paper is lacking proper description of two study groups. Although severity
of their illness is assessed, extent of their surgical problem and intra-operative
findings are not, i.e. – were their abscesses pre-operatively that require drainage,
was there a phlegmon present, etc, so including CT/US and intra-operative
findings for both groups is very important for the study like this.
2. Indications for surgery for diverticulitis in both groups are not clear – current
standard of care for acute diverticulitis is medical management, and reasons for
needing to operate on these patients within 24 hours would be very important
factors to consider as far as infectious complications go.
3. Distribution of infectious complications (which disease process if any had most
superficial and deep infectious complications) is very important and not reported.
4. Other complications reported in total numbers but not details, for example,
where there any c diff infections following antibiotic treatment.
5.Surgical approach is not reported – minimally invasive surgery has well
documented lower rate of superficial infections.
Discretionary Revisions
There is also a question of duration of antibiotics – there is a body of literature
documenting no additional benefit, and even some harm, from prolonged
peri-operative antibiotics (beyond single pre-operative dose if possible, and no
more then 24 hours of antibiotics total) for routine acute and elective cases. So it
is not clear to me why patients would need 3 days of antibiotics, unless there
some other factors that were not clearly reported. A more interesting study would
be a use of single dose pre-operative antibiotic on infectious complications after
routine acute and elective abdominal surgery
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-13-76 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:T.E.A. Study, Three days Ertapenem versus three days
Ampicillin-sulbactam
Version: 2Date:27 March 2012
Reviewer: Dimitrios Matthaiou
Reviewer's report:
It is a paper regarding the comparison of different short regimens for the
treatment of intra-abdominal infections.
Major compulsory comments
1. The manuscript needs extensive editing.
2. The introduction is almost identical to the discussion.
3. There are roughly 10 references and all of them are found in the introduction.
More references should be added.
4. New guidelines of antimicrobial therapy have been published. Please update.
5. There are problems regarding the comparison of ertapenem with
ampicillin/sulbactam, as the latter is not suggested due to high rates of resistance
to this agent among community-acquired E. coli. Furthermore, most relevant
papers compare ertapenem to ceftriaxone, piperacillin/tazobactam or similarly
potent agents. Please comment on that.
6. The figures are redundant. I suggest to keep only the one showing statistically
significant difference between the two regimens.
7. Summarizing the findings in a table or two would be very helpful.
8. Please clarify the diagnosis criteria. It is not clear how it was done. The
patients were diagnosed before or after surgery? Did the protocol include the use
of laboratory and imaging examinations?
9. Patients started antibiotic therapy before surgery and then received the
studied regimens. If the antibiotics before surgery were ertapenem or
amicillin/sulbactam then the duration of therapy was not 3-days long. Otherwise, I
suggest the authors report which were the agents. If there are many different
ones, I suggest the authors conduct sub-analyses.
10. There are no microbiologic and resistancedata of the cultures taken. A table
with such data would be very helpful.
11. There are no data regarding treatment failures. What were the pathogens?
Were there any resistant strains? What did they receive next? More data should
be reported.
Minor essential revisions
1. Inclusion criteria were put in the Statistical analysis section. Please move it in
the correct section.
2. Some percentages are wrongfully calculated.
Discretionary revisions
1. I suggest to change the trade name of ampicilli/sulbactam to the
pharmacologic one.
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-13-76 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:T.E.A. Study, Three day Ertapenem versus three day Ampicillin-sulbactam
Version: 3Date:9 October 2012
Reviewer: Vitaliy Poylin
Reviewer's report:
Authors made significant improvement in the manuscript, and most of the
reviewers comments were addressed. Two study groups are now much better
defined. There are a few adjustments that I think should be made
Minor revisions
1. Although authors included better explanation for diverticulitis patients who
were taken to surgery, but based on there description, most of the patients
should have been treated with antibiotics (either one of the study antibiotics,
Ertapenem would probably be a better one) and multiple studies show that would
have avoided surgery to most of these patients. At least mention of that this is
not necessarily standard of care (at least based on limited description provided)
2. duration of antibiotics – explanation provided by authors is acceptable, should
be better spelled out in the paper itself
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-13-76 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:T.E.A. Study, Three day Ertapenem versus three day Ampicillin-sulbactam
Version: 3Date:18 October 2012
Reviewer: Dimitrios Matthaiou
Reviewer's report:
The authors have adequatle answered all the comments.
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-13-73 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Metabonomics analysis of liver tissues in
d-galactosamine/lipopolysaccharide induced acute hepatic failure BALB/c mice
Version: 1Date:2 October 2012
Reviewer: Bo Feng
Reviewer's report:
1.In the Establishment of ALF mode part the authors describe how the ALF
models were prepared with slight modification#is there a unified standard#Is the
conclusion suitable for different stages of ALF#Please show this data.
2.In the methods section, test repeatability of GC/TOFMS system--no mention is
made of the same sample-If then can carry on the repeated test.
3.Hepatic failure metabolites were diverse, and have individual differences,we
did not find comparison of the same individual metabolic product index ,before
and after the processing of liver failure.
4.when performing detection: were investigators blinded to the type of mice?
Were the samples based on the same part of the liver? Was the damage degree
the same?
5.The statistical analysis - comparison of the two samples, Pay attention to
sample size, Whether they have statistical significance.
6.discussion needs to be shortened.
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-13-73 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Metabonomics analysis of liver tissues in
d-galactosamine/lipopolysaccharide induced acute hepatic failure BALB/c mice
Version: 1Date:10 October 2012
Reviewer: Antonio Fontanellas
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
The manuscript described the metabonomics analysis of liver tissue in a
fulminant mouse model of hepatic failure. Metabonomics is a systematic
approach to the study of in vivo metabolic profiles. GC/TOFMS is a new and
robust analytical tool to analyze a large number of endogenous metabolites. The
model is very aggressive and liver necrosis appears within 6 hours after
treatment with D-galactosamine and lipopolysaccharide. The research group has
an abroad experience in this model and the analytical tool used to separate and
identify the liver metabolites.
The paper is clearly written. The methodology used has been clearly indicated
and the statistical analysis has been correctly applied. Results obtained have
been well described; however metabolite abundance was measured by area
under the specific peak at specific time retention. In order to check easily fold
change variation in each parameter, I would suggest display the Table results as
a ratio between acute hepatic failure and control mice.
As the authors indicate in Method Section (at the end of the GC-TOFMS analysis
paragraph) they use commercially available references to identified individual
compounds by their mass spectra and retention times. Thus, authors can provide
concentration of the main compounds instead of the areas. A variation in the
concentration of a given element is much more informative than changes in its
peak area.
Last sentence in Abstract section, the authors said: “ GalN/LPS treatment can
severely disturb substance metabolism in the liver different from that in the
plasma”. However, the authors do not compare the results obtained in in both
compartments. The authors had been previously published metabonomic
analysis of plasma from mice in which the acute liver failure was induced with the
same protocol. In the discussion sections, the authors should compare the
results obtained in the liver (presented in this manuscript), with that previously
reported in the plasma.
- Minor Revisions
Background section, first line, typographical errors : “failure” instead “failue”.
Discussion, second paragraph, second sentence: “To prevent he
influence…mice were sacrificed”. This must be in the Methods Section.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-73 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Metabonomics analysis of liver tissues in
d-galactosamine/lipopolysaccharide induced acute hepatic failure BALB/c mice
Version: 1Date:16 October 2012
Reviewer: Maria G Roubelakis
Reviewer's report:
The paper by Feng et al describes the metabolomic profile of liver tissues in
d-galactosamime/lipolysaccharide induced acute hepatic failure. The authors
provide a detailed metabolomic characterization of liver tissue, the manuscript is
well written however some improvement is needed.
I recommend the following major comments to be taken into consideration by the
authors:
Major Comments:
Introduction:
The authors should stress better the reason why they why they chose
metabolomic approach for this study and the reason why this can be useful in the
respective disease.
Results-Discussion
1. The authors should also provide more details on the phenotypic characteristics
of the disease (figures or basic characteristics related to the disease such as
transaminases.
2. Metabolic pathways related should be analyzed and expanded.
3. Functional in vitro experiments should be performed, if applicable, to confirm
the identified metabolites and validate the results
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-13-73 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Metabonomics analysis of liver tissues in
d-galactosamine/lipopolysaccharide induced acute hepatic failure BALB/c mice
Version: 2Date:17 January 2013
Reviewer: Antonio Fontanellas
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
It is important to relate the observed changes in the liver with the plasma during
the induction of AFL. The authors say in their cover letter that "we are performing
further analysis on the difference." In my opinion, the decision to publish this
article should wait until these analyzes are included and they establish a
satisfactory discussion of the differences obtained in the results obtained in
plasma and liver samples.
The author must respond to these before a decision on publication can be
reached.
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 interest.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-73 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Metabonomics analysis of liver tissues in
d-galactosamine/lipopolysaccharide induced acute hepatic failure BALB/c mice
Version: 2Date:21 January 2013
Reviewer: Maria G Roubelakis
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-73 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Metabonomics analysis of liver tissues in
d-galactosamine/lipopolysaccharide induced acute hepatic failure BALB/c mice
Version: 3Date:19 March 2013
Reviewer: Maria G Roubelakis
Reviewer's report:
No further comments.
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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-13-73 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Metabonomics analysis of liver tissues in
d-galactosamine/lipopolysaccharide induced acute hepatic failure BALB/c mice
Version: 3Date:27 March 2013
Reviewer: Antonio Fontanellas
Reviewer's report:
No further comments
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-13-74 (2013)

Reviewer's report
Title:Multicenter Comparison of PEG-IFN 2a or 2b Plus Ribavirin for
Treatment-naive HCV Patient in Favorable IL-28B Polymorphism Dominant Area
Version: 1Date:27 December 2012
Reviewer: Eckart Schott
Reviewer's report:
Jin et al. provide a retrospective analysis of Korean patients with chronic hepatitis
C treated with either pegIFNa2a oder a2b. They find no difference regarding the
efficacy or tolerability of both treatment regimens.
This is a well performed study in a large patient cohort, which sheds more light
on a much disputed issue, namely the question whether one of the both available
interferons is superior. The main difference between this and prior studies ist hat
this is an excusively Asian population.
Apart from the fact that, while important and adequately addressed, the issue is
somewhat outdated in the era of protease inhibitors, I have several comments:
• The title should be changed. It should state that this is a retrospective analysis
in Asia. While the authors are right to point out that this is an area of favorable
IL28B genotypes, the title implicates that IL28B was actually analyzed. IL28B
should not be part of the title.
• Since ribavirin dosing has always been an issue in the European studies, the
authors should provide actual ribavirin doses in both groups.
• While it is correct to use an ITT analysis for the primary outcome, PP data
should also be presented for SVR, since more patients discontinued treatment in
the a2a group.
• In Table 1, the line entitled SVR does not state the numbers/% of SVR but the
numbers/% of patients treated with a2a vs. a2b
• No statistics should be calculated for n=5-6 (patients with stage 3-4 fibrosis)
since groups are just too small.
• 80-80-80 rule should be used consistenly throughout the ms (tables).
• More details regarding the propensity score matching need to be provided. How
exactly were the patients matched? If they were matched for age and gender,
age and gender cannot be an outcome in table 3.
• The numbers for SVR don’t add up in table 2 (HCV-RNA, upper part)
• The numbers for male gender don’t add up in table 3. This makes me a bit
uneasy about all the other numbers which I can’t easily recapitulate.
• I don’t understand the statistics in table 4. What does the p value stand for?
Comparison of patients with any AE or just grades 1-2? Or just stage 3? Why is
there no p-value for flu-like symptoms? Please clarify and provide p-values for
the comparison of patients with any event and with grade 3-4 events.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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 have received lecture and consulting fees from Roche and MSD.