JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02889-y (2023)

Title: Symptoms and symptom clusters in patients newly diagnosed with Inflammatory Bowel
Disease: results from the IBSEN III Study
Version: 1 Date: 13 May 2023
Reviewer:  Stefano Festa
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor,
I read with interest the paper by Johansen and colleagues entitled “Symptoms and symptom
clusters in patients newly diagnosed with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: results from the
IBSEN III Study” that is a prospective population-based inception cohort study of patients
with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).  The main aim of the present study is to explore the
prevalence of symptoms and symptom clusters and to find possible associations with socio-
demographic and clinical variables in a cohort of newly diagnosed IBD patients. The paper has
definitely different merits:
- The strict methodology and clear study design on the wake of the previous pivotal IBSEN
studies: large population-based cohorts prospectively followed, strict entry criteria for diagnosis,
well-defined catchment area.
- The poorly explored topic (Symptom clusters in IBD)
- Clear presentation and a well-explained statistical approach
I agree with the all the limitations pointed out by the authors in the discussion especially with
that regarding MSAS questionnaire used in this study. MSAS is a generic assessment tool not
validated in IBD patients  thta may have potentially limited the identification of disease-specific
symptoms.
Only some considerations to possibly ameliorate the research:
- Please specify, if explored and analyzed in your research, the prevalence of concomitant
psychiatric/psychological disorders as well as other GI conditions (IBD, coeliac disease etc).
This may potentially affect the results of the study (you need to maximize the characterization
of your population)
- Please specify the reasons why about 40% of patients did not respond to the questionnaire (is it
possible that an elderly subgroup or a subgroup with mild disease did not take part in the survey?
It is possible that a selection bias could have occurred?)
- Please expand in the section method the study design and details of IBSEN III (“Further details
on study design and patient inclusion are described elsewhere…”) .It could be helpful for the
reader to have a bried synthesis on the methodology without the need to read the reference article.
- Could you please better clarify how this research would impact the future clinical practice?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02889-y (2023)

Title: Symptoms and symptom clusters in patients newly diagnosed with Inflammatory Bowel
Disease: results from the IBSEN III Study
Version: 2 Date: 30 Jun 2023
Reviewer:  Stefano Festa
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor,
The authors answered exhaustively  to all the questions. I am satisfied with the new sentences
added in the text.
I think the paper has different merits to be  considered for acceptance in this journal
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02889-y (2023)

Title: Symptoms and symptom clusters in patients newly diagnosed with Inflammatory Bowel
Disease: results from the IBSEN III Study
Version: 2 Date: 14 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I have seen the comments from the previous reviewers, the answers
to the comments and the revised version of the manuscript.
The authors did a point by point response, explaining to the reviewers the first version of the
paper. Moreover, according to the reviewer suggestions, they have changed the manuscript.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
* Are any additional revisions needed?
No. I think that the authors explained the reviewers comments, and they changed the manuscript
based of the concerns raised by the reviewers."
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02868-3 (2023)

Title: Epidemiology and Outcomes of Choledocholithiasis and Cholangitis in the United States:
Trends and Urban-Rural Variations
Version: 1 Date: 27 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
- The report was quite thorough; I'm familiar with NIS, so appreciate mention of the co-variables,
adjustment for confounders, and sensitivity analysis
- A few edits to recommend:
1. Page 5, remove colon in line 17
2. Page 6, line, what is meant to come after inclusive? Or reword the sentence so that it is
complete.
3. Page 7 line 4, add 'the' before hospital
4. Page 7 line 16, AE should be spelled out for first mention in a paper
5. From page 12, lines 19-20, through page 14- all aOR should include p value in the text
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02868-3 (2023)

Title: Epidemiology and Outcomes of Choledocholithiasis and Cholangitis in the United States:
Trends and Urban-Rural Variations
Version: 1 Date: 28 May 2023
Reviewer:  V V Pavan Kedar Mukthinuthalapati
Reviewer's report:
The authors present a very comprehensive population-based study of choledocholithiasis and
cholangitis  in the United States. They have evaluated many  important aspects of differences
between outcomes in rural, and urban populations; while providing rationale reasons for the
observed differences/similarities.
I congratulate them on this great study.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02868-3 (2023)

Title: Epidemiology and Outcomes of Choledocholithiasis and Cholangitis in the United States:
Trends and Urban-Rural Variations
Version: 3 Date: 26 Jun 2023
Reviewer:  V V Pavan Kedar Mukthinuthalapati
Reviewer's report:
I will to defer to the other authors for additional recommendations or decision.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02868-3 (2023)

Title: Epidemiology and Outcomes of Choledocholithiasis and Cholangitis in the United States:
Trends and Urban-Rural Variations
Version: 3 Date: 28 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
Authors have minimally responded to my comments and suggestions for revisions. While some
statements and findings are still over-inflated based on the actual data, I think the authors at least
do a better job of addressing their limitations to warn the reader.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02893-2 (2023)

Title: Second primary colorectal cancer in adults: a SEER analysis of incidence and outcomes
Version: 1 Date: 08 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
The paper named “Second primary colorectal cancer in adults: a SEER analysis of incidence and
outcomes” conducted by Lun et al. has been evaluated. I think this study has certain innovation
and clinical significance. However, some obvious limitations impair the overall quality. Before
it is suitable for publication, I suggest the author make substantive modifications.
1. I noticed that some of the figures have a low resolution which makes them hard to read. I
would suggest that the authors increase the resolution of these figures, which would make them
easier to read and understand. This would also make it easier for readers to fully understand the
results and make use of it. I believe that increasing the resolution of these figures would greatly
improve the manuscript.
2. This study was conducted based on open-accessed data. Some previous studies have
used similar bioinformatics or statistical methods. Although it will lose some innovation,
I think it will benefit the reader if the authors could include the following references,
which would provide readers with a more complete understanding of the whole study: doi:
10.4103/aja2021102; doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-07070-1; doi: 10.3389/fgene.2021.627508; doi:
10.1177/10732748221129451...
3. Detailed description of all method section is required.
4. State the * and statistic value in the method section or otherwise mention in every figure
legend. e.g., *p>0.05.
5. Check the reference style and abbreviation of journals.
6. Some typos are there; rectify those (Minor).
7. Please highlight the clinical importance of this study.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02888-z (2023)

Title: Importance of preoperative total colonoscopy and endoscopic resection after self-
expandable metallic stent placement for obstructive colorectal cancer as a bridge-to-surgery
Version: 3 Date: 18 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editors,
thank you very much for letting me review this interesting paper.
The authors show their experience in 100 patients treated with SEMS placement for obstructive
colon cancer and the findings observed at pre-operative total colonoscopy enabled by SEMS
placement.  Preoperative total colonoscopy was performed in 86/100 patients. In 47 patients
a total of 143 lesions were endoscopically resected, including 9 non advanced synchronous
cancers. Additionally 4 advanced synchronous colon cancer were found at preoperative
colonoscopy.
International guidelines do not specifically recommend total colonoscopy prior to colonic
resection for obstructive cancer after SEMS placement. Therefore, it is interesting to see
the findings the authors made and might have changed the operative management of the
patients. Additionally, the findings by the authors shed some light on feasibility of preoperative
colonoscopy and feasibility of trans- stent endoscopic resection methods (CSP/EMR/ESD).
I would accept it for publication, but have some questions/remarks:
1. Did all patients undergo complete CT scans of the oncologic disease prior to colonoscopy and
if so: how many of the advanced/non advanced synchronous cancer were already detectable?
2. What is the conclusion by the authors concerning the decision made by the surgeon: Did
preoperative colonoscopy change the decision for colon resection? In how many cases were the
synchronous tumors next to the obstruction and in how many cases distant to the obstruction?
3. Which definition did you use for advanced / non advanced colon cancer
4. Is it possible including the preoperative UICC tumor stadium for all patients? It is not clear
if some patients were resected in a palliative manner or only curative intent.
5. Please provide patient data (gender, age, etc.)
6. 86/98 patients with total colonoscopy after SEMS placement. Why did 12 patients not undergo
colonoscopy?
7. Figure 1 box “TCS”: patients
8. Table 3: Is it possible to declare what kind of cancerous lesions were present (Paris
classification?)
9. Table 3: number of total synchronous cancer (lesion/patient): should be 13/12 and not 13/11?
10. It would also be helpful to declare the Boston Bowel Preparation score in patients which
had TCS after SEMS placement. This could help understand the rate of remaining lesions
encountered 1 year after colonic resection on follow up endoscopy.
11. Please declare if the data was retrospectively analyzed or prospectively collected.
Kind regards.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02888-z (2023)

Title: Importance of preoperative total colonoscopy and endoscopic resection after self-
expandable metallic stent placement for obstructive colorectal cancer as a bridge-to-surgery
Version: 3 Date: 21 May 2023
Reviewer:  #. Çolak
Reviewer's report:
The study is a retrospective study that includes the preoperative evaluation of patients who
underwent SEMS for obstruction due to colon and rectum tumors between 2016 and 2022.
The article was approved by the ethics committee and there was no obstacle to its publication.
Occlusive colon cancer is one of the life-threatening emergencies. For these patients, SEMS
allows one-stage surgical treatment. The presence of synchronous tumors and lesions proximal
to the occlusion is of concern to surgeons. Because this situation may change the surgical
intervention option. Being able to perform colonoscopy with a thin-diameter colonoscope
through the SEMS provides very important advantages for the treatment of the patient. This
study will lead to a positive change in the perspective of SEMS and thin diameter conoscope
due to the advantages it provides.
In short, if it complies with your publication policy, I think that this manuscript should be
published because it can make important contributions to surgery.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02890-5 (2023)

Title: Ilaprazole-amoxicillin dual therapy at high dose as a first-line treatment for Helicobacter
pylori infection in Hainan: A single-center, open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled
trial
Version: 3 Date: 31 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
General:
In this report, the authors investigated the efficacy, adverse events, patient compliance, and costs
of high-dose dual therapy with eprazole-amoxicillin and the conventional quadruple therapy for
H. pylori infection in Chinese patients. Authors concluded that high-dose eprazole-amoxicillin
dual therapy is equally effective, more than 90%, and safer and less costly than bismuth-
containing quadruple therapy.
This guideline was well written and may have potential.
Minor comments:
1. Authors should mention acid inhibitory effect of eprazole in Introduction section.
2. This trial was used 14-days treatment. How about 7-days treatment?
3. The study ultimately included 200 patients with chronic gastritis who tested positive for H.
pylori. How about sample power?
4. In general, dosing times is important for compliance. However, tid regimen (Group A) is
better than bid regimen (Group B). Why?
5. Result: Goup A # Group A
6. Please delete Age Distribution.
7. Authors should add a Table that show a risk for successful eradication by multivariate analysis.
8. No culture data to antimicrobial agents is serious problem. At first, authors announce that it
is important alternative treatment is important due to increase of resistant strain of antimicrobial
agents.
9. Compared with previous reports in Chinese, efficacy of bismuth-containing quadruple therapy
is too high.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02890-5 (2023)

Title: Ilaprazole-amoxicillin dual therapy at high dose as a first-line treatment for Helicobacter
pylori infection in Hainan: A single-center, open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled
trial
Version: 3 Date: 10 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Dr. Bai,
Thank you for your efforts in the field of H. pylori eradication. My comments were listed below
1. The bismuth quadruple therapy in your article is not a typical regimen. It only contained one
antibiotic (furazolidone) and the other three drugs provide acid suppression. According to the
updated Maastricht Consensus, this regimen would not sub-optimal for eradication. Although
you had good result, please explain the reason you chose a potential suboptimal regimen .
2. This study enrolled three adolescent patients, please provide the evidence that Eprazole and
bismuth were safe for these adolescent patients.
3. Whether dual high-dosed therapy or suboptimal quadruple therapy , it is reasnable that these
regimen might result in lower eradication rate to enrolled patients. Please provide the rescue
treatment and the result for those patients with treatment failure.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02879-0 (2023)

Title: A Study on Prevention of Bleeding Complications Using Lusutrombopag for Safe RFA in
Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Low Platelet Counts: Prospective Observational
Study.
Version: 2 Date: 08 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the researchers examined the safety and efficacy of lusutrombopag to avoid
bleeding complications after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with hepatocellular
carcinoma and a low platelet count. The results were satisfactory. The Reviewer has the
following comments.
1. The study design should be described in the Method section: a prospective or retrospective
study, whether informed consent was obtained or not, and so on.
2. The details should be described regarding the RFA procedure, such as the type of the RF
needle (single or expandable) and the removal of the RFA needles with or without needle tract
ablation.
3. The same term for hepatocellular carcinoma but not liver cancer should be used in the text.
4. Were there other side effects or complications associated with the use of lusutrombopag? The
authors should describe all of them.
5. In the Discussion section, the researchers should refer to the small number of the enrolled
patients as an evaluation of a certain drug in this study.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02879-0 (2023)

Title: A Study on Prevention of Bleeding Complications Using Lusutrombopag for Safe RFA in
Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Low Platelet Counts: Prospective Observational
Study.
Version: 2 Date: 09 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. Data regarding hepatoxicity of Lusutrombopag especially in cirrhotic patients need to be
introduced.
2. Authors need to clarify the exact enrollment criteria, exclusion criteria, and the study protocol
(with exact digits). If this study is prospective study, authors are definitely required to answer
to this question. For example, to whom and when was Lusutrombopag administered? What
was the exact criteria for lustrombopag administration and what’s the criteria for PLT and also
avoidance?
3. Authors are recommended to demonstrate the safety profile of Lustrombopag (adverse events
including hepatoxicity, unexpected patients’ symptoms or events, thrombosis, etc.)
4. In general, authors are highly recommended to polish this research paper including
manuscript, tables and also figures so that readers can understand what authors are trying to tell.
5. Introduction) It is hard to understand why the authors emphasized about the treatment of HCV,
and HBV and increase in NASH. Is this related to this article?
6. Introduction) Previous study results concerning bleeding or complication risk when patient
has low PLT level needs to be specifically introduced.
7. Introduction) It is hard to understand the meaning of this sentence “Lusutrombopag was
administered to patients whose PLT count tended to decline, cases where the PLT count just
before administration was > 50,000, cases that had previously recorded # 50,000, and those that
fluctuated around 50,000, or were greater than, but around, 50,000.”
8. Results) What’s the tumor staging system the authors used and how could stage III, and IV
patient undergo RFA?
9. Results) How can patient with Child Pugh Score C undergo RFA?
10. Results) “The PLT level increased from 4.4x104 ± 1.4x104 to 8.6 x104±2.5x104 µL-1 after
administration of lusutrombopag (Fig. 1).” When did the authors measure PLT count and was
there any statistical significance?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02879-0 (2023)

Title: A Study on Prevention of Bleeding Complications Using Lusutrombopag for Safe RFA in
Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Low Platelet Counts: Prospective Observational
Study.
Version: 2 Date: 17 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Yoshida et al submitted the manuscript entitled ‘Safe radiofrequency ablation for low
platelet count patients with a novel platelet count raising drug (lusutrombopag): Prospective
Observational Study.’ There are some concerns to be addressed.
Major
1. Please clarify the study design. In the title, the authors mentioned a "prospective observational
study." However, in the trial registration, the authors mentioned "retrospective." Additionally,
the authors mentioned written informed consent in the Patients and Methods section. Please
clarify these inconsistencies.
2. The authors should provide a paragraph on "statistical analyses." They should describe
categorical variables as number (percentage) and numerical variables as median (IQR) in the
main text, Table 1, Table 2, and so on. Moreover, the authors should clarify the statistical method
used when comparing the two groups. Please provide specific p-values instead of using "n.s"
in Table 2.
3. There were only 91 patients included in this study. This sample size may be too small to
confidently state that the intervention is "safe" in the main text and title. It is difficult to draw a
conclusive "safe" conclusion based on the present results. The authors should consider revising
the wording.
4. Please add detailed patient characteristics, including ALBI score, mALBI grade, serum level
of albumin, serum total bilirubin, platelet count, presence of ascites, hepatic encephalopathy,
performance status, BCLC stage, and MELD score.
5. The study included 7 patients who did not respond to treatment, as their platelet counts did
not increase above 50,000 after administration of lusutrombopag. Did the authors administer
lusutrombopag again for these patients?
6. What are the authors' thoughts on the non-effective cases? How should non-effective cases
be managed when physicians need to perform invasive procedures? The authors should discuss
this aspect.
Minor points
1. Please provide a higher resolution figure
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02879-0 (2023)

Title: A Study on Prevention of Bleeding Complications Using Lusutrombopag for Safe RFA in
Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Low Platelet Counts: Prospective Observational
Study.
Version: 4 Date: 04 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors responded well to my comments, and I do not have any additional comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02879-0 (2023)

Title: A Study on Prevention of Bleeding Complications Using Lusutrombopag for Safe RFA in
Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Low Platelet Counts: Prospective Observational
Study.
Version: 4 Date: 05 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
The Reviewer considers that the revised version is suitable for publication in this journal.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02879-0 (2023)

Title: A Study on Prevention of Bleeding Complications Using Lusutrombopag for Safe RFA in
Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Low Platelet Counts: Prospective Observational
Study.
Version: 4 Date: 07 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. Can lusutrombopag be used in decompensated cirrhosis with Child Pugh Score C?
2. Each percentage of patient number who were lower than 50,000 and higher than 50,000 at
baseline, is recommended to be described in table 1 & 2.
3. Regarding exclusion criteria, what were the criteria for patients who could not receive
lusutrombopag?
4. What authors are required to describe is about safety profile in this study’s results not previous
other study results. Because this study has prospective design, detailed description of adverse
events in separate table are necessary. (Grade of A/E also is required
5. Regarding previous question #7, how could TNM stage III, and IV patients and BLCC stage
B, C, D undergo RFA? For example, RFA is often considered as treatment methods only in
BCLC 0 and A.
6. Authors described that the predictors of effective outcome were verified in Methods
section. What’s the predictor for effective outcome and risk factor for non-effectiveness with
lusutrombopag?
7. What was the criteria for PLT transfusion? Regarding table 2, did patients group with initial
PLT count > 50,000 did not undergo PLT transfusion if PLT at last exam was higher than 50,000?
There would be severe bias if criteria for PLT transfusion is based on the level of PLT level
because baseline PLT differs in the beginning. This is important because the authors regarded
the PLT transfusion as primary outcome of this study.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02879-0 (2023)

Title: A Study on Prevention of Bleeding Complications Using Lusutrombopag for Safe RFA in
Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Low Platelet Counts: Prospective Observational
Study.
Version: 5 Date: 10 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
The required revisions have been done appropriately.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02891-4 (2023)

Title: A Systems Biology Approach to Pathogenesis of Gastric Cancer: Gene Network Modeling
and Pathway Analysis
Version: 0 Date: 15 Apr 2023
Reviewer:  Yasir Hameed
Reviewer's report:
This study is only based on the in silico prediction without any rigorous validation. The lack
of experimental validation in this manuscript is a major flaw. Therefore, this study is not very
convincing and need to be redesign before resubmission.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02891-4 (2023)

Title: A Systems Biology Approach to Pathogenesis of Gastric Cancer: Gene Network Modeling
and Pathway Analysis
Version: 0 Date: 04 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. Use same format for mentioning the version in the whole manuscript, ex. Ver, version,
Version.
2. Rewrite sentence - side heading, Reconstruction .... analysis : "Four computational algor...
as hub genes".
3. In figure 1 and 2 explanation has "previous studies using", is it published anywhere or what?
4. In table 2, use comma or semicolon for separating the other names.
5. Combine figure 3, 4 and 5 as a single figure, follow the enclosed reference article.
6. Do not use any software or tool address repeatedly, ex. string in many places.
7. Correct whether biological function or molecular function.
8. What is the valid output for motif analysis result?
9. Discussion part should be needed extensive editing: Do not include too much available others
information, discuss only your output with other reference, is there any similar result predicted
when comparing with other GC articles. There are so many research articles available for GC.
Reference Article:
Chinnappan J, Ramu A, V VR, S AK. Integrative Bioinformatics approaches to therapeutic gene
target selection in various cancers for Nitroglycerin. Sci Rep. 2021 Nov 11;11(1):22036. doi:
10.1038/s41598-021-01508-8. PMID: 34764329; PMCID: PMC8586365.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02891-4 (2023)

Title: A Systems Biology Approach to Pathogenesis of Gastric Cancer: Gene Network Modeling
and Pathway Analysis
Version: 0 Date: 27 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
In the sentences" Selection of the genes involved in gastric carcinogenesis In our previous
studies [12-14], representative overexpressed genes in GC were identified by SSH. In the current
study, the genes identified as overexpressed genes in GC in these three studies were selected
for network analysis (Table 1).“ the data used were not introduced. Furthermore, the method of
analysis and selection of overexposed genes was not mentioned. This section should be revised.
In the section " Reconstruction of genes and PPI networks and the hub analysis"  which genes
were used for PPI network analysis?
Did the authors validate Eleven hub genes in another data?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02887-0 (2023)

Title: Differentiating Gastrointestinal Tuberculosis and Crohn's Disease- A comprehensive
review
Version: 2 Date: 17 Apr 2023
Reviewer:  Davide Giuseppe Ribaldone
Reviewer's report:
- Once you’ve defined an abbreviation, always use it (see, for example, Crohn’s disease,
inflammatory bowel disease, intestinal ultrasound for IBD, etc.)
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02887-0 (2023)

Title: Differentiating Gastrointestinal Tuberculosis and Crohn's Disease- A comprehensive
review
Version: 2 Date: 20 Jun 2023
Reviewer:  Aytan Miranda Sipahi
Reviewer's report:
The review proved to be comprehensive, with a wide bibliographical review, although it
emphasizes with the same emphasis on topics of different relevance. One suggestion would be
to prioritize the problems according to their importance in the differential diagnosis. The work
deserves to be published for its scope and precision.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02839-8 (2023)

Title: Evaluation of symptomatic small bowel stricture in Crohn’s disease by double-balloon
endoscopy
Version: 1 Date: 16 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
1. The authors stated that “Based on clinical presentation and radiological findings, either
antegrade or retrograde DBE was chosen.“ in PATIENTS AND METHODS section, but it would
be better to describe more specific methods.
2. In this study, the authors evaluated the efficacy of DBE for the detection of small-bowel
stricture in CD, but the number of stricture was not evaluated. If you have data, please clarify.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02839-8 (2023)

Title: Evaluation of symptomatic small bowel stricture in Crohn’s disease by double-balloon
endoscopy
Version: 1 Date: 19 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read the paper titled 'Evaluation of symptomatic small bowel stricture in Crohn’s disease by
double-balloon endoscopy' interestingly and appreciate the authors for their academic efforts
to figure out the role of DBE in stricturing small bowel CD. Here are my comments regarding
this study.
Major comments.
1. The authors showed that DBE found more small bowel strictures than CT enterography (CTE),
especially in those with low CDOS. I wonder which kinds of management were given to those
who had DBE-positive strictures with low CDOS. DBE is more sensitive to detecting small
intestinal strictures than CTE. However, if DBE-positive, mild strictures did not require any
change in management, the clinical role of DBE would be less significant.
2. If the authors performed therapeutic interventions for strictures, such as balloon dilation,
stricturoplasty, or bowel resection surgery, please provide the outcomes.
3. If available, please provide the clinical course of those with strictures detected by only DbE
and by only CTE, respectively.
Minor comments.
1. The introduction is a little excessively redundant and is felt somewhat incoherent in the
viewpoint of the study aims. I think the authors can brief the introduction focusing on their study
aims.
2. I recommend the authors get an English editing service to improve the readability for average
readers.
3. I found several typos or inadequately used upper cases in the manuscript, and they can be
corrected if an expert editing service is used.
4. Please provide abbreviations of repeated phrases or terms once when those appear first in
the manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02839-8 (2023)

Title: Evaluation of symptomatic small bowel stricture in Crohn’s disease by double-balloon
endoscopy
Version: 2 Date: 21 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate the authors for revising their draft.
1. There is a grammatical error. On page 3, the following sentence, "In the CDOS, the severity
of stenosis symptoms are graded from 1 to 6": 'are' should be 'is'.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02878-1 (2023)

Title: Reconstructing self from the illness: a constructivist grounded theory study of
posttraumatic growth in patients with Crohn’s disease
Version: 1 Date: 15 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
As the first study to explore the reconstructing self from Crohn’s disease among Chinese
patients, the core categories "suffering from the illness", "accepting the illness", "dancing with
the illness" and "enriching life beyond the illness" were proper.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02878-1 (2023)

Title: Reconstructing self from the illness: a constructivist grounded theory study of
posttraumatic growth in patients with Crohn’s disease
Version: 1 Date: 16 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting study with the potential to contribute to the application of post-traumatic
growth theory to understand the Chinese patient’s adjustment process of living with Crohn’s
disease. Though the results would be relevant and meaningful to the readers and/or health care
practitioner, it does require substantive modifications/improvements to be more meaning.
1. Background/introduction
This is a qualitative study with the aim to construct a model or theory to understand the Chinese
women’s adjustment process of living with Crohn’s disease, using a Post-traumatic Growth
(PTG) theoretical framework and Charmaz’s constructivist grounded theory as a methodological
approach. While the study overall comprises the basic components in this kind of study-literature
review, however, it lacks an in-depth engagement of the literature. Given the nature of the
grounded theory study it would be better to clearly contextualise your study in Chinese culture/
Chinese women rather than generalise to the whole population with Crohn’s disease.
There are a few published studies focusing on developing the PTG theory  in other disease such
as  cancer, it would be great if you can provide some explanation to justify the importance of
your work given PTG theoretical model within Chinese background has been developed.
2. 2.5 Ethical considerations
More information needed regarding ethical consideration. For example, your ethical
considerations during and after the interview session, what will you do if the participant want
to withdraw or demonstrate some distress during/after the interview etc,.
3. Result
As it stands, the analysis of data does not reflect in-depth descriptions and coherence in
interpretation. Authors did not mention if any computer software was used for data management,
i.e., how data were managed. • The patients quotes were not rich or substantive to reflect or
support authors statements. For each quote, it would be enhance your paper if your provide some
explanation and interpretation, rather than just listed all the quotes. Overall, the quotes presented
do not provide strong support of the core concept and the categories. It’s difficult to understand
the process on how the core concept reconstructing self was arrived and how it is related to PTG
4. Discussion.
More in-depth engagement and analysis of the literature would be helpful, e.g., how does culture
influence the process. The development of theory needs to be flushed out more by engaging the
literature more fully, e.g., integrate with literature on Chinese cultural factors or some studies on
PTG among Chinese patients. Any similarities/differences compared with PTG process among
other illness.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02878-1 (2023)

Title: Reconstructing self from the illness: a constructivist grounded theory study of
posttraumatic growth in patients with Crohn’s disease
Version: 1 Date: 26 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript. Overall, a current topic for a
broader readership and further exploration of this topic to explore the psychosocial process
of posttraumatic growth in patients with Crohn’s disease and construct an interpretive
understanding from the perspectives of patients in China.
A few questions / comments and suggestions:
In Line 17-18, how to elaborate COREQ in the method part of the manuscript, relevant to the
study is not clear.
In Line 58, indicated ‘several studies’, only have 2 studies, but in Line 69, stated ‘few published
studies’, have 3 studies, relevant to the study is not clear.
In Line 89, stated that ‘purposive sampling’, but in Line 92, wrote ‘snowball sampling’, some
confusing for sampling strategy, relevant to the study is not clear.
In Line 476-479, to elaborate detailly at the early stage of diagnosis, relevant to the study is
not clear.
In Line 487-490, how to elaborate “discrimination was positively”, relevant to the study is not
clear.
In Line 391-393, be more detailly describe the meaning of “change of the original impression
of the illness”, relevant to the study is not clear.
In Line 490-492, how to this study analyze the result as different from other culture of “a sense
of belonging”, relevant to the study is not clear.
In 505-507, suggest more elaborate “the assumptive worlds theory” to the content of discussion
section, relevant to the study is not clear.
In 526-527, why participants influenced by Confucian culture, relevant to the study is not clear.
In 542-543, to elaborate detailly about ‘Westerners and Easterners’, relevant to the study is not
clear.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02878-1 (2023)

Title: Reconstructing self from the illness: a constructivist grounded theory study of
posttraumatic growth in patients with Crohn’s disease
Version: 2 Date: 12 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review again the manuscript. Overall, a current topic
for a broader readership and further exploration of this topic to explore the psychosocial
process of posttraumatic growth in patients with Crohn’s disease and construct an interpretive
understanding from the perspectives of patients in China.
A few questions / comments and suggestions:
In Line 109, 127, 128, and 150, aware of names of authors, suggest changing to their name initial
or authors’ order, such as “Chen Zhang” change to “CZ” or second author, etc.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02884-3 (2023)

Title: Efficacy and safety of Bifidobacterium quadruple viable tablets combined with mosapride
citrate in the treatment of constipation in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 20 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of the comparison of mosapride plus Probiotic
with mosapride alone. There are a few suggestions for the improvement of the article below:
1. Please delete “13 studies were included”, either from the methods or results section of the
abstract
2. Please make the conclusion in the abstract more succinct.
3. In the opening paragraph of your introduction, please define chronic idiopathic constipation
as per ROME criteria.
4. “Prolonged duration of FC can cause hemorrhoids, increase the risk of cardiovascular disease
and bowel cancer, lead to negative emotions such as anxiety and depression, and seriously affect
the quality of life of patients”. Please provide appropriate evidence to support this sentence,
especially the increased risk of CV disease and colon cancer.
5. What does “traditional treatment” mean? Do you mean the standard of care? If yes, fiber and
osmotic laxatives are the first lines of treatment. Please correct accordingly
6. There are multiple grammatical and language errors that need to be corrected throughout the
manuscript. Extensive revision is needed
7. The search strategy had very limited words. Why was the word “astriction” part of the
search strategy? Please revise the search strategy and add PRISMA-S to the manuscript as a
supplementary document
8. Please add the PRISMA checklist to the document
9. The search strategy mentions that all retrospective and prospective studies were included
while the inclusion criteria suggest that only RCTs were included. Please correct this.
10. The discussion is not streamlined, and it is hard for the reader to follow what the authors are
trying to convey. I would recommend rewriting the discussion and discussing your results and
their impact on managing this condition.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02884-3 (2023)

Title: Efficacy and safety of Bifidobacterium quadruple viable tablets combined with mosapride
citrate in the treatment of constipation in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 18 May 2023
Reviewer:  Wenyu Yang
Reviewer's report:
1.The title shows that the research is on Bifidobacterium quadruple viable bacterial tables
combined with mosapride city, but the abstract shows that the research is on Bifidobacterium
quadruple viable tables. Please clarify the specific research object of the article.
2.Nearly one year has passed since the literature selected for this study ended in July 2022. It
is suggested that the literature from July 2022 to now be supplemented and analyzed again to
determine whether it will affect the reliability of the conclusions of this paper.
3.The language needs to be polished by a professional.
4.Comparative analysis of this study and similar studies should be added to the discussion.
5.Some of the authors of this study are from profit-making enterprises, so it needs to be clear
whether there is any interest correlation with this study.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02884-3 (2023)

Title: Efficacy and safety of Bifidobacterium quadruple viable tablets combined with mosapride
citrate in the treatment of constipation in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 02 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. The association of straining with cardiovascular events does not have a strong association.
Would recommend authors revise this sentence or remove it.
2. Otherwise no other changes needed
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02880-7 (2023)

Title: Clinical factors associated with acute abdominal symptoms induced by gastric anisakiasis:
A multicenter retrospective cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 12 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
The paper entitled “Clinical factors associated with acute abdominal symptoms induced by
gastric anisakiasis: A multicenter retrospective cohort study” is an interesting retrospective
cohort study involving 264 patients diagnosed with gastric anisakiasis analysed to detect
potential correlation with clinical factors.
The study is interesting and the paper is well written.
However there are some aspects that needs clarification.
The main issue regards the identification of the anisakids species responsible for the described
cases. A large number of studies have demonstrated that the different species, in particular
A. simplex and A. pegreffii, are able to provoke different damages, have different ability to
penetrate the mucosa, different survival rates in gastric juice and, more importantly, RNA-
seq studies have demonstrated that they express genes involved in pathogenicity in a different
manner. Of course, I understand that the specific identification is not possible now, but the
authors should discuss this as a possible limitation of the study.
Being a retrospective cohort study based on medical records and endoscopic images, the
sentence at page 9: “We found 348 anisakis larvae (1 larvae, 212 patients; 2 larvae, 29 patients;
3 larvae, 7 patients; 4 larvae, 3 patients; 5 larvae, 3 patients; 6 larvae, 1 patient; 7 larvae, 2
patients; 10 larvae, 1 patient)” makes no sense.
Throughout the MS and especially in the References there are a lot of species names not correctly
written and not in italics (in particular H.pylori instead of H. pylori)
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02880-7 (2023)

Title: Clinical factors associated with acute abdominal symptoms induced by gastric anisakiasis:
A multicenter retrospective cohort study
Version: 2 Date: 25 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
The MS has been very much improved. I have few minor comments, and only one comment
to work on more seriously.
Spell out EGD at the first mentioning in Methodology
Multiple Anisakis cases – rather change to multiple Anisakis larvae infection. Can authors also
add the reason why this was exclusion criterium?
In discussion change to: Anisakis infection can cause different types of disease
The statement related to eosinophilia and WBC count discrepancy needs more plausible
explanation, as it is not convincing; Page 16, line 13 in Discussion: “…they may be associated
with chronic anisakiasis, which forms masses characterized by eosinophilic granulomas
[29,30].”
Eosinophilia in helminth infections starts early, and is not related to chronic disease [10.1016/
j.iac.2015.05.003]. Besides, you stated earlier that the timing of infection by Anisakis was
unknown, so this factor was appearing in either asymptomatic and symptomatic cases. Could
normal WBC and eosinophilia be related to H. pylori, or some other factor related to diabetes
or mucosal atrophy. Please try to find some tangible evidence from literature.
Page 17, line 13: species molecular identification, rather than species search
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02876-3 (2023)

Title: Endovascular treatment of symptomatic hepatic venous outflow obstruction post major
liver resection
Version: 4 Date: 29 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
A retrospective study on an interesting topic, previously not much described in the literature.
The methods are well described and the text is easy to follow; the limitations are thoroughly
described and the figures are appropriate and easy to understand. I recommend though that the
manuscript is revised by a native english speaker.
I only have several minor issues to address:
1. In the Results section the authors describe: 8 patients with balloon PTA, 3 patients with
primary stent and 2 patients without endovascular treatment. This makes 13 patients altogether
while previously it was described that 12 patients were included in the study. The numbers
should be verified.
2. Patency rates: The primary patency rates for POBA and Stent are reported. What about the
assisted patency rates that were mentioned in the M&M section?
3. In the discussion section I find one sentences a bit misleading.
"However, a significant change in laboratory parameters in the end stage liver disease  population
is not necessarily expected": the way it follows the previous sentence one might understand that
the studied population hat end stage liver disease which is not true.
4. The paragraph starting with "In this patient population the outcomes were poor due to the
underlying malignancy": the authors only mention the outcomes in the discussion, not in the
M&M and Results section. This should be either investigated in the study, then mentioned in
the Results, or otherwise completely left out.
5. in the following paragraph: "The short-term primary patency of POBA was comparable to
primary stenting": in the Rresults quite a big difference in the patency rates was described; is
it not statistically significant?
6. "However, re-stenoses of the hepatic veins were detected in three patients (...) stent placement
with the stenotic segment located outside of the inserted stent.  " : I think this should be moved
to the results section
7. In the conclusion section: "To avoid short-term re-intervention in this patient population
primary stenting might offer advantages over sole POBA": Is this suggested by the study results?
In the results section the authors describe lower patency rates after primary stenting. This might
have different reasons and the patient number is very low but it does not suggest that it offers
advantages over POBA.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02876-3 (2023)

Title: Endovascular treatment of symptomatic hepatic venous outflow obstruction post major
liver resection
Version: 4 Date: 14 May 2023
Reviewer:  Zhongzhi Jia
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting study, i like it. However, this study has limitations, including small sample,
short time of follow-up. The authors state in the conclusion "To avoid short-term re-intervention
in this patient population primary stenting might offer advantages over sole POBA", however,
the  follow-up is short, we do not know the long term  outcomes of stenting.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02876-3 (2023)

Title: Endovascular treatment of symptomatic hepatic venous outflow obstruction post major
liver resection
Version: 5 Date: 22 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
In the Methods of the Abstract section, the authors said “Primary and primary assisted hepatic
venous patency times were calculated”, where the word “times” should be modified as “time”.
Similar errors can be seen in the entire text.
In the Material and methods section, the description of which type of patient needs endovascular
treatment is inconsistent with the Technical success of Results section. Specifically, in the
Procedural technique of the Material and methods section, the authors said “Pressure gradients
greater than 3 mmHg were considered to require therapy”, but in the Technical success of Results
section, the authors said “Two Interventions were considered as technically successful, even
though no endovascular treatment was necessary since there was a lack of a significant pressure
gradient in these two cases (<5mmHg)”. It should be noted that patient 5 received endovascular
treatment despite the value of HPVG less than 3 (patient 5 HVPG 2mmHg) in Table 3.
The description of Table 1 is inconsistent with Table 2. For example, in Table 1, the second
intervention for patient 1 is “stent placement”, but in Table 2, the second intervention for patient
1 included both “balloon angioplasty” and “stent placement”. Similar errors can be seen patient
5, patient 6, and patient 12.
In the Discussion section, the authors said “In this patient population, the majority of primary
interventions were POBA”, the authors should provide the full name of “POBA” when it appears
firstly.