JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0336-9 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Polymorphisms of the PRLHR, HSPA12A and Risk of Gastric Cancer,
Colorectal Cancer in the Chinese Han Population
Version:2Date:4 July 2015
Reviewer: Juozas Kupcinskas
Reviewer's report:
Su et al. present a case-control study, where they suggest that PRLHR and
HSPA12A SNPs might be linked with the risk of digestive cancers. The authors
present original data, that might be of interest for researchers working in the field;
however, certain issues need to be addressed that are discussed below.
Major compulsory revisions:
1) The language of the manuscript needs to be revised extensively by a person
proficient in English. There are multiple grammar errors throughout the
manuscript that need to be addressed before further consideration for
publication.
2) One of the major concerns is related to the choice of seven SNPs for
genotyping analysis. The authors discuss only HSPA12A and PRLHR genes;
however, their study included analysis of other 5 SNPs with no comment for their
choice at all. The authors should explain the strategy and rationale they used for
selecting all of the SNPs in this study.
3) My major concern is the statistical approach used in this paper that might
greatly influence the outcomes. I have strong doubts about the significance
thresholds (p<0.05) used by the authors in this paper. There are multiple
statistical comparisons shown in this paper; however, Bonferonni correction for
adjusting p-value is not applied. After adjusting p-values, I believe that none of
the associations reported by researchers retain required significance levels. This
should completely change the conclusions drawn the researchers and give a
more objective outlook of the results presented the researchers.
4) Introduction and discussion section are poorly structured and organized. The
authors should discuss their findings more cautiously regarding the limitations of
the statistical analysis that are outlined above.
Minor essential revisions:
1) Citation to support the statement is missing: page 3, ln 53
2) Please check p-values in Table 1. Gender proportions in gastric cancer group
and control group seem to be not equal.
3) The description of control subjects has to be clarified. Why were these patients
referred to the department of surgery? The authors should discuss the limitations
of not using population based control group.
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: 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/s12876-015-0337-8 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Major predictors and management of small-bowel angioectasia
Version:6Date:3 May 2015
Reviewer: Anastasios Koulaouzidis
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
Correlation of Yano-Yamamoto and Saurin Classification in this cohort
Use of reprint images for the above.
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:
Disclosure:
Dr A Koulaouzidis has received lecture honoraria from Dr Falk Pharma and travel
support from Dr FalkPharma, Almirall, MSD, Abbott, Ferring, and received
material support form research from SynMed and GivenImaging Ltd.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0337-8 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Major predictors and management of small-bowel angioectasia
Version:6Date:11 May 2015
Reviewer: meir mizrahi
Reviewer's report:
Summary: This is a retrospective study over approximately 800 patients who had
OGIB, of those 238 patients underwent both CE and DBE, of those 77 patients
were excluded due to incomplete small bowel visualization, the rest of the
patients were divided based on the capsule and endoscopic procedure in to 2
groups, angioectasia and non angioectasia groups. The authors sought to
determine factors which may predict the presence of small bowel angiectasia and
which is the best way to treat those angiectasia based on Yano – Yamamoto’s
classification. Patients with angioectasia 1b were further divided in to 2 treatment
groups 1 with single treatment with polidocanol injection and the second group
with 2 treatment modalities such as PDI and APC or clipping. The question
posed by the authors is well defined, the methods are appropriate and the
discussion and conclusions are well balanced and adequately supported by the
data except for one issue that I will discuss in the revision section.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Line 214 the authors write: “In this study, PDI was shown to be the treatment
of choice”…. This is not a correct statement!!!! The authors can’t state this
because they didn’t compare different ways to treat angioectasia. Need to
changed
2. Authors need to add section on study limitations……
3. Line 236-237 authors need to describe why they think that no statistical
difference was found in between the 2 groups.
Additional minor comments:
1. Line 183, please explain if patients in the study were also had aortic stenosis.
2. Line 187 it will be valuable to know if patients among the 2 groups had
different HVPG levels (if it was tested).
3. Some minor language correction
Declaration of competing interests:
I HAVE NOTHING TO DECLER
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0337-8 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Major predictors and management of small-bowel angioectasia
Version:7Date:24 June 2015
Reviewer: Anastasios Koulaouzidis
Reviewer's report:
none
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:
none
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0337-8 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Major predictors and management of small-bowel angioectasia
Version:7Date:2 July 2015
Reviewer: meir mizrahi
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript is much better than the previous one
I have nothing else to add and the paper can 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 have nothing to declare
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0334-y (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Outcomes of endoscopic management of primary and refractory
postcholecystectomy biliary leaks in a multicentre review of 178 patients
Version:2Date:24 April 2015
Reviewer: Akira Imoto
Reviewer's report:
Major
1. Are there any comparative studies between MPSs and FCSEMS in
endoscopic management of bile leaks post cholecystectomy? If exist, please
describe it in discussion.
2. What do authors think the differences between single or double plastic stenting
and more than triple plastic stenting. Please describe it in discussion.
3. Why authors did not routinely insert stents above the leak site? Do authors
compare the success rate between covered leak site group and uncovered leak
site group? Please describe them in Table 3 and discussion.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0334-y (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Outcomes of endoscopic management of primary and refractory
postcholecystectomy biliary leaks in a multicentre review of 178 patients
Version:2Date:28 May 2015
Reviewer: SHUNJUN FU
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer’s report
Title: Outcomes of endoscopic management of primary and refractory
postcholecystectomy biliary leaks in a multicentre review of 178 patients
Version:1Date: 27 May 2015
Reviewer: Shun-Jun Fu
Reviewer's report:
The authors explored the clinical effectiveness of initial endotherapy for post-
cholecystectomy biliary leaks using an homogenous approach (sphincterotomy +
placement of a 10-French plastic stent) in a large series of patients as well as the
optimal and efficacy of rescue endotherapy for refractory biliary leaks. The study
is a very valuable research of clinical application. I have some questions for the
study.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. How many patients was received laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in your 4
institutions between March 2009 and July 2014? How much is the incidence of
biliary leaks? How much is the incidence of biliary injury? Many literary studies
and our experience showed that the incidence of biliary injury is higher than
biliary leak. Only biliary leak not biliary injury can be mostly solved by biliary
drainage in the percutaneous drains according to our experience. How to
explain?
2. How to deal with cystic duct stump when LC? Hamlock or Absorbable Clips?
Minor Essential Revisions
Line 260, page 12
“a median period of 67 days (range, 30-67 days)”. Is he median period of 67 days
same as the maximum 67 days?
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/s12876-015-0335-x (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Intra-esophageal whitish mass - a challenging diagnosis
Version:2Date:27 April 2015
Reviewer: Amitabh Srivastava
Reviewer's report:
The authors present an interesting case of a calcified mass in the esophagus.
However, given the information provided it appears that this is most likely a
calcified mass in an esophageal diverticulum rather than a typical esophageal
fibrovascular polyp (FVP). Typical FVP are slender, finger like projections with a
narrow stalk that arise in a background of normal appearing esophagus. The sac
like diverticular distension seen on imaging in this case argues against the
diagnosis of FVP and suggests that stasis of contents was the most likely cause
of nodular calcification identified. Some of the more recent literature on giant FVP
and their overlap with atypical lipomatous tumor of the esophagus has also not
been discussed or cited in this manuscript. The lack of any histology images for
what is essentially a pathologic diagnosis is also a limitation of the submitted
work.
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:
No competing interest
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0335-x (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Intra-esophageal whitish mass - a challenging diagnosis
Version:2Date:27 April 2015
Reviewer: Giovanni Pallabazzer
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revision
In the abstract and in the paper you say: we present a case of an
auto-amputated, calcified esophageal pedunculated tumor...... this calcified mass
is an uncommon evolution of an esophageal pedunculated polyp. This is a
pathogenetic interesting hypothesis and not a fact, probably it is an uncommon
evolution of an esophageal fibrovascular polyp but there are some doubts: the
majority originate from the upper third of the esophagus and then where is the
pedicle?
Discretionary revision
Describe better the endoscopy after the removal of the esophageal mass: after
one month was the esophagus enlarged yet? was the ulcer healed? Did the
patient perform another gastrointestinal series? X-ray shows tertiary contraction:
did the patient perform high resolution manometry?
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/s12876-015-0335-x (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Intra-esophageal whitish mass - a challenging diagnosis
Version:2Date:30 April 2015
Reviewer: kawada kenro
Reviewer's report:
Minor revisions
This tumor is reported that calcified esophageal pedunculated tumor most
probably a fibrovascular polyp.
Author must refer to the definition of fibrovascular poryp, and clarify the
difference of the tumor.
(add the next references)
Stout AP, Lattes R: Tumors of the esophagus.
Edited by. In Atlas of tumor pathology. Fasci-
cle 20. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology,
Washington DC, p25-32, 1957
Watanabe H, Jass JR, Sobin LH: World Health Organization: Histological typing
of oesophageal and gastroc tumors 2nd ed, Springer-Ver-lag, Berlin, 1990,p16
P3 line 75 Figure3: 3 pictures were enough, Please show me the esophagogram
about pedicle of the tumor if you have.
P3 line 87 a definitive histological was not possible==please refer the difference
between the tumor and the fibrovascular polyp.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest 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/s12876-015-0319-x (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:The role of cytoplasmic p57 in invasion of hepatocellular carcinoma
Version:2Date:2 February 2015
Reviewer: Andrea Cariati
Reviewer's report:
Discretional revision:
Discretional additional data could be to report the cytoplasmic p57 alterations in
humans hepatocellular cacinoma alcohol associated and in human hepatocellular
carcinoma hepatitis B or hepatitis C correlated. (i.e.) divide the 45 patients with
hepatocellular carcinoma according to the ethiology (Alcohol related group; B
hepatitis related group; C hepatitis related group) and report cytoplasmic p 57
alterations.
Best regards
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/s12876-015-0319-x (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:The role of cytoplasmic p57 in invasion of hepatocellular carcinoma
Version:2Date:8 April 2015
Reviewer: Catia Giovannini
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript by Guo et al investigates the role of cytoplasmic p57 in
hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The paper contains some interesting
observations but it is rather descriptive. The authors tried to demonstrate that
cytoplasmic p57 is involved in HCC invasion however, no invasion assay are
reported in the manuscript to demonstrate the role of p57 in this mechanism..
Several points need to be addressed:
a) Figure 1A has to be replaced, cytoplasmic staining is moderate and look like
background.
b) Figure 1: magnification can’t be 400x as described in the methods.
c) Authors need to show p57 and p-cofilin staining in the same area at least in
three HCC cases and surrounding non tumour tissues.
d) Figure 2A: p57 expression in BEL7402 and SMMC7721 cells is not moderate
but high.
e) In methods authors report two shRNA sequence for p57 silencing however,
throughout the manuscript only one shRNA is reported. Both shRNA-p57 have to
be used in at least some experiments to role out off-target effects.
f) Figure 2D does not show difference in LIMK1 expression in p57 silenced cells
compared to NC cells.
g) Figure 3A: BEL7402-shp57 are not silenced since no difference in p57
expression is evident between sh-p57 and shNC cells.
h) Figure 3B: an internal housekeeping control is necessary also for nuclear
proteins (for example Histones).
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's.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0319-x (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:The role of cytoplasmic p57 in invasion of hepatocellular carcinoma
Version:2Date:16 April 2015
Reviewer: Robert Eferl
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Nuclear staining of p57 is not evident in Figure 1A. The authors should label
nuclei that are considered to be p57-positive with arrows. There seem to be no
cofilin-positive cells in Figure 1C. Have the brownish vesicles been considered as
cofilin-positive signals? Cofilin IHC-staining of cancer tissues including
hepatocellular carcinoma looks different. The reliability of the correlations
between nuclear p57 with tumor size, cytoplasmic p57 with metastasis as well as
cytoplasmic absence of p57/cofilin with TNM stage and metastasis require
improved stainings which should be provided in Figure 1.
2. The authors claim that p57 interacts with LIMK1 and provide
co-immunoprecipitation data in Figure 2D. There is, however, no visible effect on
“co-immunoprecipitation” of LIMK1 in the hepatoma cell lines after knock-down of
p57. The authors should evaluate other mechanisms of p57-mediated regulation
of cofilin expression. Realtime PCR analysis for cofilin mRNA should be
performed to reveal transcriptional versus post-transcriptional mechanisms.
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 have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0333-z (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:C-reactive protein level at two weeks following initiation of infliximab
induction therapy predicts outcomes in patients with ulcerative colitis: A three
year follow-up study.
Version:4Date:23 May 2015
Reviewer: Konstantinos Karmiris
Reviewer's report:
The authors have adequately answered my comments and I have no further
issues to address.
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/s12876-015-0333-z (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:C-reactive protein level at two weeks following initiation of infliximab
induction therapy predicts outcomes in patients with ulcerative colitis: A three
year follow-up study.
Version:4Date:13 June 2015
Reviewer: Bella Ungar
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript is much better written. The authors addressed one of the
main problems and re-assigned patients to 3 groups more accurately. The
manuscript is now more logically designed and the English is more effluent.
Figures are impressive.
However some revisions are still required in my view:
Introduction lines 71-71 - I agree that most studies dealt with CD, but the data
regarding IFX efficacy in UC is ample and well established. The sentence has to
be amended accordingly.
Results line 154 - you state that median IFX dose was 5.8/mg/kg, while
elsewhere you stated that the standard dose was 5mg/kg. Can you elaborate on
that?
line 155 - you probably meant time to flare-up
I would shorten the second paragraph of the results (starting at line 152 - Table 1
is good enough and the demography is not the main issue of the study)
line 187 - Did you examine the value of albumin as a marker for responders vs
others (you mention only partial responders)
The results regarding proctocolectomy are interesting.
Discussion
lines 205 - 227 - The summary of results in the discussion section should be
brief.
lines 231 - 237 - Your study shows that lower CRP values were associated with
better clinical outcome. You cannot conclude which patients have a TNF
mediated disease based on these findings.
255 264 I believe that the contents of this paragraph should be added to the
methods instead of the discussion
A limitations paragraph should be added to the discussion. Some of the
limitations are the limited sample size (72 patients for the 3 groups), lack of
endoscopic date (sigmoidoscopy is widely used even in acute severe colitis).
Can albumin values be added to table 3?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0331-1 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:A randomized, double-blind study of the effects of omega-3 fatty acids
(Omegaven) on outcome after major liver resection
Version:2Date:26 March 2015
Reviewer: J. Wesley Alexander
Reviewer's report:
1. I felt that this study protocol was reasonable and the approach for using
omega-3 fatty acids for reducing complications is justified.
2. This could be major: However, I am not sure that two doses of fish oil are
sufficient and feel they should consider at least another dose on postop day
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
Non-financial competing interests: Yes, we are currently working on the concept
that fish oil and arginine will have anti-inflammatory effects which may be useful
for several conditions.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0331-1 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:A randomized, double-blind study of the effects of omega-3 fatty acids
(Omegaven) on outcome after major liver resection
Version:2Date:11 April 2015
Reviewer: Srinivasan Dasarathy
Reviewer's report:
This is a review of the multicenter protocol that examines the impact of 2 doses
of omega 3 fatty acid infusion in the perioperative period of a set of predefined
outcome measures.
The study is very well designed and will address the specific questions being
raised. The protocol for randomization and double blinding has been the 2
groups has taken into account all identifiable confounding factors.
The following concerns do remain
Are patients stratified for hepatic reserve- Child or MELD score when being
randomized; will a stratified randomization be adopted to overcome this
Will the indication for resection affect the outcome
Will readmission within 1m or 3 m be affected?
Will recovery of hepatic regeneration be considered as an outcome measure
Will hepatic decompensation be defined a priori?
Is the dose dependent on body weight or is a fixed dose being administered to all
subjects? Given the distribution of omega 3 fatty acids in adipose tissue, this may
impact the availability of the free omega 3 fatty acids in circulation.
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, 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/s12876-015-0332-0 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Diagnostic accuracy of reused Pronto Dry(R) test and CLOtest(R) in the
detection of Helicobacter pylori infection
Version:1Date:17 June 2015
Reviewer: Javed Yakoob
Reviewer's report:
Manuscript has been revised satisfactorily
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/s12876-015-0332-0 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Diagnostic accuracy of reused Pronto Dry(R) test and CLOtest(R) in the
detection of Helicobacter pylori infection
Version:1Date:26 June 2015
Reviewer: Alejandro Piscoya
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revision
Even though Likelihood ratios have been calculated for CLOtest (Table 1), they
are not described in Diagnostic Accuracy as the LR´s for Pronto Dry are. The
discussion says LR negative is not good for CLOtest but actually is quite good, it
will reduce probability from 17% (prevalence used as pre test probability) to less
than 2%.. So reuse of CLOtest will work borth both positive and negative results
Minor Essential Revision
Cost is an important issue here and should be discussed with numbers, how
much on average is the cost of Pronto Dry and CLOtest in order to better
understand the importance for low resource countries
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/s12876-015-0330-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Comparison of the Gut Microbiota Composition between Obese and
Non-obese Individuals in a Japanese Population, as Analyzed by Terminal
Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism and Next-generation Sequencing
Version:3Date:7 April 2015
Reviewer: Rajesh Krishnamoorthi
Reviewer's report:
I commend the study authors for their effort. The study investigates a currently
relevant area – relationship between obesity and gut microbiota. My additional
comments are:
1. The study suffers from a small number of subjects in both obese and
non-obese groups. Hence, the reliability of study results may not be high. The
study 'n' drops further in next-generation sequencing groups.
2. The authors need to further clarify the inclusion and exclusion of subjects such
as 'no of patients who underwent colonoscopy between 2012 -2013', 'No of
patients below 65 years', 'no of patients who met each of the exclusion criteria'
etc. This becomes all the more important given the small study 'n'. Addition of a
flow diagram might help.
3. Authors need to clarify if baseline characteristics listed in table 1 were
available in all study subjects. Were there any missing values at all?
4. Authors mention that the difference in age between the obese and non-obese
groups did not influence the results (line 290). Authors should consider providing
that data as supplementary material. In addition, similar analysis need to be
performed for each of the baseline variable that was different between the 2
groups like HbA1c and other laboratory markers.
5. While the authors justify the selection of unconventional BMI cutoffs <20 for
non-obese group and >25 for obese group, generalizability of the current study
results to the western world and comparability with other studies becomes a
significant issue.
6. One of the primary study results is that obese subjects have more bacterial
diversity compared to non-obese group. This is in contrast to previous studies
that have reported lesser diversity in obese subjects. Though the authors
propose that the 'different' BMI cut offs used in the current study could explain
the discrepancy, the small study 'n' could also contribute significantly to the
discrepancy.
7. Parts of discussion are repetitive. References are needed in paragraph 1 of
discussion.
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/s12876-015-0320-4 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Cost-Effectiveness of Sofosbuvir-Based Treatments for Chronic Hepatitis C
Version:2Date:6 February 2015
Reviewer: Thomas von Hahn
Reviewer's report:
This is a solid, relevant and timely piece of work. However, I do have a few
recommendation how this paper may be modified to be even more relevant given
the clinical reality of early 2015.
Major points:
- The model seems to miss the possibility of transitioning from HCC to liver
transplantation. However, in reality this does happen in a significant number of
cases. This should be included in the model or at least discussed.
- The meaning of and concept of ICER should be explained in a way that makes
it understandable for readers including those with a clinical background.
- It should be discussed whether SOF-based treatment is deemed superior to „no
treatment“ in any patient where interferon containing therapy is not an option
because of contraindications or because interferon based therapy has failed.
- Mention should be made of additional treatment option that have become
available since the introduction of sofosbuvir. It should at least be discussed how
– based on this modelt hat only includes sofosbuvir and no newer DAA’s – even
more potent DAA regimens will likely change the rcommendations made. This
seems relevant givem that at least in settings where DAA are widely available
stratedies of „IFN/ribavirin first, IFN-free second“ are rarely employed in practice.
Minor points:
- In the introduction referring to PEG/ribavirin therapy the authors state that „The
combination treatments achieve a 50–80% sustained virologic response (SVR)“.
This should be specified more precisely for genotype 1 vs 2/3. Throughout the
manuscript, whenever stating SVR rates it should be made clear what genotype
the percentage pertains to.
- When describing the studies the SVR rates for sofosbuvir containing treatments
are derived from patient numbers by genotype should be stated.
- The sentence on page 9, lines 4/5 should be changed to „As a benchmark, a
‚no treatment’ strategy results in an average life cost of $75,688 and 13.28
QALYs“
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:
Thomas von Hahn is member of the speaker’s bureau of Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0320-4 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Cost-Effectiveness of Sofosbuvir-Based Treatments for Chronic Hepatitis C
in the US
Version:3Date:13 March 2015
Reviewer: Thomas von Hahn
Reviewer's report:
The authors have adequately addressed my concerns. I now fully support the
publication of this work.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0320-4 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Cost-Effectiveness of Sofosbuvir-Based Treatments for Chronic Hepatitis C
in the US
Version:3Date:24 March 2015
Reviewer: Sergio Iannazzo
Reviewer's report:
The authors improved significantly the manuscript and touched all points raised
in the previous round of revision. Overall I believe that the manuscript is now
acceptable. A few residual concerns remain around the following (minor) points:
1. the abstract is still not entirely clear, especially for what concerns the
description of the comparators tested. I suggest to summarize the information
currently well presented in page 4 rows 159-163 and page 5 rows 164-170
2 . in tables 7.1 and 7.2 I suggest to use the more standard terms "dominant" and
"dominated" rather them "efficient" and "inefficient"
3 . in Figures 1-9 I suggest to avoid representing negative thresholds of $/QALY,
since the interpretation of these can be confusing. Moreover I suggest to present
all charts with the same horizontal scale to improve the comparability and to
avoid to report numbers in the scientific notation, which may be non familiar to all
readers (use instead $ x 1,000 or $ million)
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/s12876-015-0329-8 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Factors affecting post-embolization fever and liver failure after trans-arterial
chemo-embolization in a cohort without background infective hepatitis- a
prospective analysis
Version:1Date:10 June 2015
Reviewer: Oren Shibolet
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor
The manuscript by Dr. Siriwardana entitled: "Factors affecting post embolization
fever and liver failure after TACE in a cohort without a background of infective
hepatitis-a prospective study", describes the outcomes of a small cohort of
patients with NASH and ALD associated cirrhosis that underwent TACE for HCC.
The study adds little to current knowledge, however the methodology is
reasonable and the manuscript is well written and can be accepted pending
corrections
Major comments:
1. The authors repeatedly state that his cohort is of NASH and ALD associated
cirrhosis. It is unclear whether these are consecutive patients or selected
patients. The authors should clarify this point. It would be interesting to compare
complication rates of this cohort and a cohort with viral hepatitis
2. The study adds very little to current knowledge. Multiple larger and more
rigorous studies were already published in the past.
3. In the definition of AHD there are 2 parameters that are subjective. I.e.
encephalopathy and increased ascites. The authors should explain how these
parameters were measured and determined. They should state the exact
increase in encephalopathy New-Haven score and the amount of ascites that
was considered deterioration.
4. Follow-up was done on days 1-3 post embolization; however the authors state
that without early complications patients were discharged after 48 hours. This
would suggest that delayed appearance of symptoms may have been missed.
5. Furthermore-the authors followed patients on day 7 at an out-patient clinic.
The authors should describe whether there were any drop-outs and missed clinic
visits
6. In any case the authors do not discuss the possibility of missing late
complications. Hepatic abscesses can occur further then this short time
follow-up.
7. The discussion is very repetitive with the entire first paragraph, re-stating the
results. Furthermore the authors do not fully discuss the mechanisms that may
be responsible for their results, and their narrative is purely descriptive.
Minor comments
1. There are multiple typos that need to be corrected
2. Page 12 line 259-a ref should be inserted
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/s12876-015-0329-8 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Factors affecting post-embolization fever and liver failure after trans-arterial
chemo-embolization in a cohort without background infective hepatitis- a
prospective analysis
Version:1Date:19 June 2015
Reviewer: DARIO PORETT
Reviewer's report:
MAJOR COMPULSORY REVISIONS
1. In the methodology chapter it is not stated if patients receive any type of
parenteral medication before, during and after the chemoembolization procedure.
This is a key issue for several reasons: it affects pain and nausea if pain killers
and antiemetics are used, it might have an impact on fever for the possible risk of
developing infections, especially for patients with previous interventions on the
biliary tract, if antibiotics are used.
2. In the Results the complications are correctly enumerated, but in the
discussion only PEF and AHD are taken into consideration. This is a severe lack
in the paper, especially for AKI , because it is a possible life threatening
complication. We need to know the degree of insufficiency and the way it has
been treated. It is also important to know the severity and duration of the other
complications: NV, abdominal pain and infection. The latter in particular has to be
correlated to the dimensions of the lesions treated, which is accepted as a key
element.
3. In the discussion section : - line 268 – please define how much hospital stay
was prolonged; - line 270 – what are the precautions you consider could be
useful in reducing the incidence of the complication?
As previously stated please complete with consideration on all the other
complications non discussed.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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/s12876-015-0327-x (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Interobserver and intraobserver agreement for gastric mucosa atrophy
Version:2Date:21 June 2015
Reviewer: Sergejs Isajevs
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript "Interobserver and intraobserver agreement for gastric mucosa
atrophy" is very interesting and important for the assessment of gastric
premalignant lesions and riks stratification.
The comparison between the endocopic and histological assessment could
significantly improve the manuscript, but this was not the aim of this study.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1) The table summarizing the enrolled patients characteristics should be provide;
2) In Discussion, the endoscopic findings about interobserver and intraobserver
agreement should be discussed with the literature data concerning OLGA and
OLGIM staging system.
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/s12876-015-0322-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:"And then you're going mad because you're thinking of Nutella": The
significance of food for people with inflammatory bowel disease - a qualitative
study
Version:1Date:17 May 2015
Reviewer: Jacqueline Doyle
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
Abstract: There are some phrases that used in the text that are less helpful e.g.
"Out of the ordinary" - Out of the ordinary for who and in what context, who
decides what is is ordinary and what is not?.
Methods- I think you need to say more about the epistemology behind grounded
theory
Analysis: Tis is a fantastically interesting study but my impression is that analysis
and the themes suggested do not do it justice and reflect the lived reality of
people living with IBD. The themes that struck me were:
1) Uncertainty (both from personal and professional)
2) Being different (this is evidenced most obviously in social situations/ where
people give advice "onions are good" and speculate about eating disorders)
3) Craving and aversion (as already written)
4) Managing uncertainty e.g. quotes around trusting the body, using different
method for flare ups/normal times, not eating at all, using a traffic light system)
There are some phrases that used in the text that are less helpful e.g. "Out of the
ordinary" - Out of the ordinary for who and in what context, who decides what is
is ordinary and what is not?.
Discussion- Tighten up your recommendations to doctors. I would drop the
phrase "special communication techniques", as I think what you want to say are
that doctors should acknowledge the uncertainty, allow space for patients to think
about the effects, encourage trial and error etc.
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/s12876-015-0322-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:"And then you're going mad because you're thinking of Nutella": The
significance of food for people with inflammatory bowel disease - a qualitative
study
Version:1Date:22 May 2015
Reviewer: Margaret Schneider
Reviewer's report:
I have attached a file with my comments. I feel that all of my comments fall within
the minor essential category.
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/s12876-015-0325-z (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Moderate activation of IKK2-NF-kB in unstressed adult mouse liver induces
cytoprotective genes and lipogenesis without apparent signs of inflammation or
fibrosis
Version:2Date:20 January 2015
Reviewer: Mihael MV Vucur
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
On the first sight, the story from Hong Lu and colleagues sounds interesting and
indicate a dose-dependent effect of constitutive active IKK2 in hepatocytes,
which is in contrast to previous published studies. However, the study is based
only on expression profiles without the confirmation on protein levels to indicate a
physiological relevance. It would be helpful to analyze 2-3 genes on protein
levels for each subclass of target genes (cytokines, antioxidative genes etc.).
Moreover, the result part is a listing of more than 100 genes and makes it quite
difficult to read.
The authors state, that in contrast to previous published studies, their constitutive
active IKK2 mice, is moderate expressed in livers (even lower than endogenous
IKK2) and therefore cannot induce the previous described pro-inflammatory and
fibrogenic phenotype. This might indicate an insufficient experimental setting.
Furthermore, it is well known that the Albumin-Cre mice lead to an inefficient
deletion of floxed sequences (for example c-FLIP-deletion, Sci Signal. 2013 Jan
15;6(258):pe2. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.2003845.) and therefore it is unclear if the
IKK2ca is really overall expressed in these mice. The paper would benefit with
additional experiments to prove the overactivation of NF-kB via IKK2ca, eg
EMSA and nuclear p65 immunohistochemistry. Moreover, EMSA-analyses
should be also performed for the non-canonical pathway because the authors
indicate an important anti-inflammatory effect for this pathway. Furthermore, the
results shown in Figure 8b are uncompleted showing nuclear fraction with a
GADPH loading control whereas it would be necessary to use a nuclear marker
such as TBP. This figure needs to be updated regarding this point, and both
fractions (cytoplasmic and nuclear) should be load side by side on a blot.
Minor Essential Revisions
Finally, it would be necessary to discuss a possible NF-kB independent function
of IKK2 that might suppress inflammation in the context of low expression.
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:
no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0324-0 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy: observational study of the treatment
with low-dose ursodeoxycholic acid
Version:2Date:7 June 2015
Reviewer: Andrew Mallett
Reviewer's report:
I thank the authors for their resubmission and for addressing the previously noted
requested revisions.
Major Compulsory Revisions
- Nil.
Minor Essential Revisions
- Whilst I concur that the numbers in Table 3 are small and thus may potentially
preclude the application of statistical analysis for significant difference, this
should be clearly stated (either in the text or table itself).
Discretionary Revisions
- Nil.
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/s12876-015-0324-0 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy: observational study of the treatment
with low-dose ursodeoxycholic acid
Version:2Date:26 June 2015
Reviewer: Chad Hall
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
None
Minor Essential Revisions
None
Discretionary Revisions
None
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/s12876-015-0318-y (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Access to Primary Care is Associated with Better Autoimmune Hepatitis
Outcomes in an Urban County Hospital
Version:2Date:5 March 2015
Reviewer: Robert Gish
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1) The abstract needs to be updated with improved English and Syntax
2) The authors need to outline the access to GI/Liver specialists
3) What systems are proposed to decrease loss to follow up patients?
4) Who performed the the dose of the immune suppressant medications?
5) Was there a call back system for patients on medications?
6) Did the authors use a national database such as MediCare or other system to
track death rate outside the county health care system to search for those "lost to
follow up"?
7) Was the MELD score applied to all patients or only those with cirrhosis?
Minor Essential Revisions
PBC name has been changed to primary biliary cholangitis, reference J Hep,
WHO website ICD-11, PBCers, PBC Foundation websites
AST and ALT are not liver function tests: these are liver enzymes
Bili, Alb and INR are liver function tests using 2015 terminology
IV prednisolone is very rarely used for AIH: who received IV steroids, why and for
how long ?
Discretionary Revisions
the graphs appear blurry when reviewed, high quality TIFF files would be
supported
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:
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the
publication of this paper, either now or in the future?
no
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or
lose financially from the publication of this paper, either now or in the future?
no
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content
of the manuscript?
No
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization
that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
no
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
no
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
no
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
RGG