JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03090-x (2023)

Title: Effectiveness and safety of adalimumab in patients with intestinal Behçet’s disease: a
real-world prospective observational study in South Korea
Version: 4 Date: 01 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
Few points that need to be addressed in the manuscript are as follows:
1. The mean disease duration is mentioned as 57.1±55 years while the mean age of the patients
is 47.5±14.8 years; these two seem not going with each other. Please check.
2. 72% the patients were taking intestinal anti-inflammatory agents at baseline. Please mention
the specific agents being taken. Also, this indicates that 72% patients were having intestinal
inflammation at baseline, most likely IBD. At baseline, a relatively high proportion of patients
were taking immunosuppressants and systemic corticosteroids.
How was it ensured that the existing comorbidity (IBD) and medication (s) not interfered with
the study findings? Or were any statistical methods adopted to handle these confounding factors?
3. During study, what were the other treatments allowed for the disease condition per se?
4. There was a high incidence of serious adverse events (26%; 13 patients; 37 events) in the study
population. The results section should also include a description of SAEs and serious adverse
reactions.
5. What was the incidence of TEAEs (treatment emergent adverse events)?
6. How was the sample size calculation performed? In the STROBE checklist, it is mentioned
at page no. 6, while there is no such description in the manuscript.
7. Please give details on who did the endoscopic and DAIBD assessment. Were any steps taken
to eliminate the subjective/ observer bias associated with these assessments?
8. Which bio-chemical method was utilised to estimate serum CRP levels?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03090-x (2023)

Title: Effectiveness and safety of adalimumab in patients with intestinal Behçet’s disease: a
real-world prospective observational study in South Korea
Version: 6 Date: 20 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors have made efforts toward resolving the queries raised and incorporated desired
changes in the manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03080-z (2023)

Title: Factors influencing the healthcare transition in Chinese adolescents with inflammatory
bowel disease: A multi-perspective qualitative study
Version: 1 Date: 01 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this important manuscript. Overall, this article is well
written and methodologically sound. There are some minor grammatical and spelling errors
noted throughout the paper and tables. This study adds value to the transition literature because
it focuses on the Chinese context.
Abstract: Results section – I suggest to identify barriers found to influence transition.
Background: It may be helpful to provide a few sentences on the IBD transition process within
China. Are youth patients automatically referred to an adult provider once they age-out of
pediatric care? When reading the findings related to the Chinese environment, I understand there
are some inadequacies with the system, but I can’t fully understand the results because I need
a bit more information about the Chinese healthcare setting and ways in which transitions are
managed within it.
Methods: Participant section – it is unclear what is meant by ‘we maintained a one-to-one
relationship between the patient and their parents’. I would suggest to add some clarification to
this sentence. It is unclear if the caregivers/parent participants were matched with the adolescent
participants. For example, did both the adolescent and the caregiver dyad need to participate?
I suggest a sentence to clarify if this was a requirement or not. It is not clear exactly how
study participants were recruited. The authors mention that recruitment occurred at IBD centres
and through China Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, but how exactly was recruitment material
and information distributed to potential participants? I suggest greater clarity is needed on the
recruitment process. Data collection – I suggest adding a clarification stating that the interviews
were 1:1 interviews and not group interviews. Data collection and analysis was described and
conducted appropriately based on what was described in the manuscript.
Results: The constructed framework developed by the researchers is illustrative of the key
themes, is novel, and is easy to understand. Well done. On page 8, the heading is ‘transition
awareness’, should it read ‘transition consciousness’ to be consistent with the model? Also
within the model, under the provider section, there is ‘transition consciousness’, I suggest to
explain what type of transition consciousness is required by the providers within the body of
the manuscript. It may be helpful to add a new heading in the body of the text to introduce the
next outer ring in the figure (i.e. parent-child separation and communication) to better guide
the reader.
Discussion: I believe it would add value to the manuscript to add a paragraph of suggestions for
providers, patients, parents, communities, or health systems on how the newly developed model
and findings can be integrated at each level.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03080-z (2023)

Title: Factors influencing the healthcare transition in Chinese adolescents with inflammatory
bowel disease: A multi-perspective qualitative study
Version: 1 Date: 17 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Martha van Gaalen
Reviewer's report:
It is evident that significant time and effort went into the research and writing of this article,
which explores an interesting and important topic through with use of qualitative research.  The
discussion offers valuable insights into the cultural variations in transition care.
The article is well-written.
Major points
1. Transitional care for childhood-onset IBD patients may differ from country to country, or
even from hospital to hospital in the same country.
It is not clear from the manuscript what is the current  standard of transitional care in
China. Do all Chinese patients with childhood-onset IBD transfer to adult care (Department of
Gastroenterology)? At what age ? What does the Chinese transition program look like? Please
describe this in more detail, including when does the transition program start? When does it end?
2. Could you provide further information on the (years of) experience of the healthcare
professionals with IBD patients in transition; and suggest adding this information to Table 3?
3. Results section: The identification of factors that either are facilitators or barriers in the
transition process remains unclear. While Figure 1 and Table 4 provide a brief overview, it would
be valuable to have a clear distinction between (negative and positive) factors;
4. In the discussion, the comparison of results with the SMART model was unexpectedly
introduced. It would be clearer if this relationship was described earlier in the article, perhaps
under the introduction of methods section.
Minor point
1. Issue is the terminology used for "Self-efficacy in transition by providers".  It appears to
be more related to organizational matters rather than self-efficacy, in my belief. Maybe with
additional time and resources, the provider would be able to provide better transitional care.
2. Be more specific in your discussion, e.g. by describing which factors are important for the
transition.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03080-z (2023)

Title: Factors influencing the healthcare transition in Chinese adolescents with inflammatory
bowel disease: A multi-perspective qualitative study
Version: 3 Date: 18 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed the reviewer feedback adequately. It is a much stronger manuscript
as a result of the revisions. Well done. This manuscript adds to the IBD transition literature from
a Chinese perspective.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03080-z (2023)

Title: Factors influencing the healthcare transition in Chinese adolescents with inflammatory
bowel disease: A multi-perspective qualitative study
Version: 3 Date: 27 Nov 2023
Reviewer:  Martha van Gaalen
Reviewer's report:
The research team worked hard to improve the manuscript. My main points have been well
adjusted. As far as I am concerned, the manuscript is ready for publication
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03087-6 (2023)

Title: Efficacy and Safety of HIP1601 (Dual Delayed-release Esomeprazole) 40mg in Erosive
Esophagitis Compared to HGP1705 (Delayed-release Esomeprazole) 40mg: A Multicenter,
Randomized, Double-blind, Non-inferiority Study
Version: 3 Date: 24 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Lim et al conducted RCT of conventional EPZ vs novel EPZ in sustained GERD resolution and
erosive esophagitis. This is well written. There is some concerns about the clinical significance
of this RCT.
1. The clinical significance of this RCT remains uncertain. Are there inherent issues with
conventional EPZ, and can the novel EPZ effectively address these concerns? If so, what
prompted the utilization of a non-inferiority analysis in the study design?
2. If one of the issues is nocturnal acid breakthrough (NAB), the comparison should have been
between a PPI and a potassium-competitive acid blocker (PCAB). It is well-established that
even double-dose PPIs often fail to control NAB, and PCAB is considered the most promising
option for NAB management. Why was the choice for comparison made as novel EPZ rather
than PCAB? Please provide clarification.
3. There is a compelling unmet need in the treatment of GERD. Consider conducting an
RCT comparing PPIs to PCABs, given that the acid-blocking efficacy of PCABs significantly
surpasses that of double-dose PPIs.
4. In the evaluation of NAB, the utilization of an insomnia scale is warranted.
5. To assess dyspepsia symptoms rigorously, the use of a validated gastrointestinal symptom
scale is indispensable.
6. Individuals who have Helicobacter pylori infection should be excluded. Current Helicobacter
pylori infection significantly influences dyspepsia symptoms as well as GERD symptoms.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03087-6 (2023)

Title: Efficacy and Safety of HIP1601 (Dual Delayed-release Esomeprazole) 40mg in Erosive
Esophagitis Compared to HGP1705 (Delayed-release Esomeprazole) 40mg: A Multicenter,
Randomized, Double-blind, Non-inferiority Study
Version: 3 Date: 01 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors report the results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study
comparing the efficacy of the newly developed Dual Delayed-release Esomeprazole versus
Delayed-release Esomeprazole in patients with reflux esophagitis.
Although the study was multicenter, randomized, double-blind, and had a high level of evidence,
the following concerns were raised
1. Although the primary endpoint was the endoscopic cure rate at 8 weeks, the patients with
endoscopic cure at 4 weeks had not undergone endoscopy at 8 weeks. The design of the study,
which included an endoscopy at 4 weeks, even though it was designed to evaluate at 8 weeks,
makes the study confusing. This should be clearly stated since it is the cure rate up to 8 weeks,
not the cure rate at 8 weeks.
2. It is stated in the limitation that the number of LA Grade C-D cases was extremely small
(9 cases), which may have influenced the results. It is known that acid reflux at night is more
common in Grade C-D patients.
3. Figure 2: LA Grade C-D patients are 100% cured at 4 weeks, but was endoscopy performed
at 8 weeks? Please clarify. If you are going to use Figure 2, I suggest you include the number
of cases.
4. In a similar study, Kim HC et al. showed that 24-hour gastric acid suppression was similar
between the two formulations, while the inhibition during night-time (22:00-06:00) showed a
better tendency in the DR formulation. (Drug Des Devel Ther. 2023 Apr 12;17:1115-1124.) It
is recommended to add it to the references.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03087-6 (2023)

Title: Efficacy and Safety of HIP1601 (Dual Delayed-release Esomeprazole) 40mg in Erosive
Esophagitis Compared to HGP1705 (Delayed-release Esomeprazole) 40mg: A Multicenter,
Randomized, Double-blind, Non-inferiority Study
Version: 6 Date: 29 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Authors sufficiently respond my comments.
I would like to wait their next RCT: esomeprazole vs tegoprazan.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03087-6 (2023)

Title: Efficacy and Safety of HIP1601 (Dual Delayed-release Esomeprazole) 40mg in Erosive
Esophagitis Compared to HGP1705 (Delayed-release Esomeprazole) 40mg: A Multicenter,
Randomized, Double-blind, Non-inferiority Study
Version: 6 Date: 10 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors have adequately responded to my comments and have no additional comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03100-y (2023)

Title: Efficacy comparison of 7- and 14-day P-CAB based bismuth-containing quadruple
regimen with PPI based bismuth-containing quadruple regimen for Helicobacter pylori
infection: rationale and design of an open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial
Version: 0 Date: 30 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
1.
In P4, study design, line 7, “The PC-BMT regimens will consist of tegoprazan 50 mg BID,
bismuth subcitrate 300 mg QID, tetracycline 500 mg QID, metronidazole 500 mg TID, and
tetracycline 500 mg QID daily.” tetracycline 500mg QID was mentioned twice, which is an
unnecessary repeat, please revise this sentence.
2.
In P4, study design, line 7, “whereas the P-BMT regimen will consist of a standard dose of PPI
BID, bismuth subcitrate 300 mg QID, metronidazole 500 mg TID, and tetracycline 500 mg QID
daily.” PPI bid use is vital in H.pylori eradication regimen. Which kind of PPI regimen will be
used in this protocol should be mentioned clearly. Different PPI regimen might have different
dosage or different treatment efficacy, it is better to use the same regimen in this study. If the
authors have different opinion or idea, welcome to clarify this point.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03100-y (2023)

Title: Efficacy comparison of 7- and 14-day P-CAB based bismuth-containing quadruple
regimen with PPI based bismuth-containing quadruple regimen for Helicobacter pylori
infection: rationale and design of an open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial
Version: 1 Date: 30 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors had made thorough and correct revisions according to my previous comments. I
appreciate  the authors'  efforts and cooperation for this work.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03100-y (2023)

Title: Efficacy comparison of 7- and 14-day P-CAB based bismuth-containing quadruple
regimen with PPI based bismuth-containing quadruple regimen for Helicobacter pylori
infection: rationale and design of an open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial
Version: 2 Date: 23 Nov 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?
N/A - no experiments or analyses
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: My concerns centered on 4 issues
1. Contingency plan for missing data
2. Mention limitations in the discussion section
3. Validated questionnaires on adverse events
4. Bonafide sample size calculation
Point 1 and 3 zero down on the measures needed for the study, and the authors now give a
bit better background how they will deal with missing data and with the use of an unvalidated
questionnaire. Point 4 is a core point, the authors want to perform a non-inferiority study
with 3 arms and this , usually, requires a larger sample than currently listed. On basis of
the assumptions given, the power calculation  appears to be correct. I duly note that the
assumptions are much more lax than in their previous publication https://www.tandfonline.com/
doi/full/10.1080/19490976.2020.1754118  and that the power of the study, with 85%, is
relatively low
I appreciate the willingness by the authors to adhere to the CONSORT ‘guidelines’, but the
actual statement is missing.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The trial is ongoing and I would like to see it completed
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The authors have addressed the concerns I had
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03083-w (2023)

Title: Ultrasound imaging findings in primary biliary cholangitis
Version: 1 Date: 12 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Very specific topic, but relevant for internal medicine and hepatology diagnostics.
Relatively large number of PBC patients.
Confirmed by histology and comparison with Hep B patients.
First assessment of fibrosis grade by US criteria in PBC patients.
Very positive: 2 very experienced investigators were blinded.
Included patients were evenly distributed in 4 histological stages
Introduction: Backround and aim of the study are clearly stated and understandable
Methods: Well understood
Results: factual comparison. Interobserver agreemant is also described
Discussion: Very extensive but understandable.
Topic Limitations: Is an application also recommended for less experienced ultrasonographers?
Probably not? Because the sonography method is very special and requires a large routine,
therefore a generalization is only possible with limitations.
Summary: A very nice, clearly conducted study with valid and for the first time so described
results.
Only in the limitation the above-mentioned addition would have to be made, with 2 or maximum
3 sentences to be inserted.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03083-w (2023)

Title: Ultrasound imaging findings in primary biliary cholangitis
Version: 1 Date: 21 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
This article is interesting, but the description is problematic (see below) and is not acceptable
for publication in the present form.
Major points
1) English: To be revised. If not, I cannot understand the detail. It needs to be corrected by
someone familiar with medical terminology and English.
2) Medical terms: In my opinion, the terms used in this article are sometimes inappropriate.
P7, L7. “liver echogenicity”. Echo texture is appropriate
P7, L13. “rami inferior segment of left external lobe” What does it mean?
P8, L3. “blunt”. It means dull?
3) Definitions: Please define more accurately the terms used in this article.
e.g. sharp edge vs blunted edge.
Please define “diameters of the left hepatic lobe”.
4) Materials and Methods: In this study, there are 24 cases of non-histologically proven PBC
and 13 cases of clinically diagnosed CHB.
In my opinion, the authors should have excluded them, because grouping histologically proven
cases and non-proven cases together may decrease the quality of the article.
Minor points
1) The agreement between the two observers for liver echogenicity was poor --. Why ? Please
add a few considerations about that in Discussion.
2) References: There are very few articles of ultrasound.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03083-w (2023)

Title: Ultrasound imaging findings in primary biliary cholangitis
Version: 3 Date: 17 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript has been sufficiently revised, but has the following problem.
Minor point
1.(P.13) “During our investigation, we performed pathological analysis of a rare patient---the
portal area.”
This new description appears for the first time in Discussion. Please describe it in Results and
discuss it in Discussion.
How many patients of PBC received transplantation?
2.(P.18) “The main method for non-invasive PBC staging ---was higher than that of VCTE“.
I cannot understand why the authors describe suddenly US elastography in Discussion. The
authors did not perform it in this study. I think it is an important limitation of this study. Please
add this problem in the end of Discussion (as third limitation)(P.18).
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03083-w (2023)

Title: Ultrasound imaging findings in primary biliary cholangitis
Version: 3 Date: 19 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Very specific topic, but relevant for internal medicine and hepatology diagnostics.
Relatively large number of PBC patients.
Confirmed by histology and comparison with Hep B patients.
First assessment of fibrosis grade by US criteria in PBC patients.
Very positive: 2 very experienced investigators were blinded.
Included patients were evenly distributed in 4 histological stages
Introduction: Backround and aim of the study are clearly stated and understandable
Methods: Well understood
Results: factual comparison. Interobserver agreemant is also described
Discussion: Very extensive but understandable.
Topic Limitations: Is an application also recommended for less experienced ultrasonographers?
Probably not? Because the sonography method is very
special and requires a large routine, therefore a generalization is only possible with limitations.
Summary: A very nice, clearly conducted study with valid and for the first time so described
results.
Only in the limitation the above-mentioned addition would have to be made, with 2 or maximum
3 sentences to be inserte
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03085-8 (2023)

Title: Dual Metformin and SGLT2 Inhibitor Therapy Reduces Mortality and Liver
Complications in Cirrhotic Patients with Diabetes Mellitus
Version: 3 Date: 18 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors present a very interesting analysis and well-written manuscript examining the risk
of mortality, liver decompensation events and hepatocellular carcinoma in patients on dual
metformin/SGLT2i therapy vs. metformin alone. The authors find a lower risk of these events
in patients on dual vs. mono therapy using propensity score matching.
I find these analyses and findings to be worthwhile for publication in BMC Gastroenterology,
however I have one main concern and a few minor comments that should be addressed prior
to publication:
1) My main concern relates to the grouping of hypoglycemia medications together, without
separating out GLP-1RA and pioglitazone. While the variable "other hypo meds" is included
in propensity score matching, this doesn't account for specific differences that may exist in
GLP-1RA use and pioglitazone between the two groups. This is important because both of these
medications have been shown to improve NAFLD/NASH , and because patients on SGLT2i
may be more likely to be prescribed GLP-1RA than those NOT on SGLT2i, given their joint
indication in ASCVD.  Furthermore, GLP-1RA reduce CV events, so it cannot be known
whether GLP-1RA use is actually driving a reduction in (CV) mortality vs. SGLT2i (or both).
This is a major limitation. Please include the proportion of GLP-1RA and pioglitazone use
between arms in Table 1, and re-run an analysis with matching for at least the GLP-1RA use.
2) Minor comments
- Page 7, line 18: CKD stages 3-4 are no longer a contraindication to SGLT2i based on guidelines,
however they may have been for a part of the study period examined. The exclusion is justified,
but please acknowledge somehow that this is no longer the case, so as to not mislead readers
- Recommend softening conclusion in abstract and in main paper to "may improve" or "may
benefit" - you cannot infer causation here, only association
- Consider switch to updated nomenclature: MASLD/MASH (Rinella ME, Lazarus JV, Ratziu
V, et al. A multi-society Delphi consensus statement on new fatty liver disease nomenclature.
Hepatology. 2023)
-Please switch language from "Hispanics" to "Hispanic patients" wherever this is listed.
- In addition to poor coding of NASH/NAFLD, another potential reason for why you are seeing
lower HR with SGLT2i in the "non-NASH" cohort is because there is still overlap between
metabolic liver disease (NAFLD) and other forms of liver disease. This is becoming increasingly
recognized (and very likely in a diabetes population), and could be another reason why a
potential benefit with SGLT2i is seen in seemingly "non NASH/NAFLD" groups.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03085-8 (2023)

Title: Dual Metformin and SGLT2 Inhibitor Therapy Reduces Mortality and Liver
Complications in Cirrhotic Patients with Diabetes Mellitus
Version: 7 Date: 04 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
Authors have adequately responded to reviewers comments. Thank you.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03085-8 (2023)

Title: Dual Metformin and SGLT2 Inhibitor Therapy Reduces Mortality and Liver
Complications in Cirrhotic Patients with Diabetes Mellitus
Version: 7 Date: 08 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate the authors' efforts to address key comments in the manuscript and to clarify the
discussion of the results.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03071-0 (2023)

Title: COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT PANCREATIC CANCER TREATMENTS: A
THREE-YEAR RETROSPECTIVE STUDY IN THE ONCOLOGY CENTER OF TANGIER
UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, MOROCCO
Version: 0 Date: 31 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
I had the honor of reviewing your research article .  Overall, it was good  though revisions will
be requested.
The originality of the study can be assessed as average although it reports a unique experience in
an oncology center in Morocco. In my opinion, a brief paragraph should be included to describe
the interest of the study in the context of your country.
Title : the title does not perfectly reflect the objectives of the study and the comparison of two
medical treatments. Try to improve the title to make it more interesting and attractive.
"in our study" has been used and spotted several times throughout the text, you can change it
to in the current study or in this study.
In the Discussion :
Other retrospective studies have previously been carried out in Morocco, including
similar epidemiologic, clinical and therapeutic features, such as « Bazine A,
Fetohi M, Tores M, Tanz R, Tahiri ME, Choho A, Ichou M.Pancreatic ductal
adenocarcinoma in a Moroccan population: analysis of six years experience. Int
Surg J2018;5:1628-32. » or on a population of young patients, such as «
RaissouniS,RaisG,MrabtiH,RaissouniF,MouzountH,AitelhajM,etal.Pancreaticadenocarcinomainyoungadultsinamoroccanpopulation.JGastrointestCancer.2012;43(4):607-11.
» . So, it is highly desirable to cite them and include them in the discussion to compare
populations similar to the patients in your studies.
The discussion is otherwise well structured
the level of English is good
the conclusion is long; I suggest reducing it and reporting only the conclusions of the study and
the recommendations or proposals made by the authors.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03071-0 (2023)

Title: COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT PANCREATIC CANCER TREATMENTS: A
THREE-YEAR RETROSPECTIVE STUDY IN THE ONCOLOGY CENTER OF TANGIER
UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, MOROCCO
Version: 0 Date: 17 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
Authors are reporting the results of a retrospective study about 55 patients treated for pancreastic
cancer, mostly metastatic(31) or locally advanced(15/55).
English have to be corrected
% have to be expressed with only one decimal
References number have to be reduced according to the journal recommendations, max 30 by
remonving the oldest one
Data concerning “median OS” are not convining and have to be corrected, specially due to
the short median follow up of 4.1 months and patients number specially in 2021 that’s less
than 20 collected. The paper contains this sentence “MOS was significantly longer within
patients treated with Folfirinox than Gemcitabine  at 6 versus 3 months, (p< 0.016). Median
OS within the patients that received Folforinox and Gemcitabine successively (19.7 months)
was significantly longer compared to Folforinox group or Gemcitabine group alone (p< 0.016).
This is in contradiction with literature data, the following “The median survival for patients with
untreated, locally advanced, unresectable pancreatic cancer is 8 to 12 months and only three to
six months for those with metastatic disease at presentation(Supportive care of the patient with
locally advanced or metastatic exocrine pancreatic cancer by Carlos Fernandez-del Castillo and
al,   Literature review in Aug 2023).
It's not a priority paper due to the reduced population
It needs a major revision and restructuration
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03071-0 (2023)

Title: COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT PANCREATIC CANCER TREATMENTS: A
THREE-YEAR RETROSPECTIVE STUDY IN THE ONCOLOGY CENTER OF TANGIER
UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, MOROCCO
Version: 1 Date: 15 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
English have to be corrected
The presented data remain confuse
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03071-0 (2023)

Title: COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT PANCREATIC CANCER TREATMENTS: A
THREE-YEAR RETROSPECTIVE STUDY IN THE ONCOLOGY CENTER OF TANGIER
UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, MOROCCO
Version: 1 Date: 29 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
thank you for revising the article, however some changes need to be made.
Comment 1: English have to be corrected
The current work was designed to report the first epidemiological and clinical features, as well as
the comparison of different treatments employed efficiency on the North of Morocco pancreatic
cancer patients in the Medical Oncology Center at Tangier University Hospital, Morocco.
Use this for example
The present study was designed first to report the epidemiological and clinical characteristics,
and then to compare the efficacy of the different treatments used in patients with pancreatic
cancer at the Medical Oncology Center of the University Hospital of Tangier, northern Morocco.
This retrospective study was included
This retrospective study included
Commen2 : is your cancer center just Medical oncology center ?  , modify please by the name
of the cancer center or use medical oncology department
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03071-0 (2023)

Title: COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT PANCREATIC CANCER TREATMENTS: A
THREE-YEAR RETROSPECTIVE STUDY IN THE ONCOLOGY CENTER OF TANGIER
UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, MOROCCO
Version: 2 Date: 02 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
I recommand to accept the manuscript, all questions were satisfied
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03062-1 (2023)

Title: The comparison of an accessible C-shaped partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy (C-PSH)
versus circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy (CSH) in patients with grade IV hemorrhoids: a
retrospective cohort study
Version: 4 Date: 13 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
This study is noteworthy in that partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy was performed using the
author's unique method and the research results were derived through propensity score matching.
However, there are some questions about this study.
1. The authors must specify whether the study design is retrospective or prospective.
- If it is a prospective cohort study, the authors must mention the sample size calculation.
2. In order to be sure how many patients have not been followed up for more than 5 years, we
need the number at risk in fig 5. Also, since the investigation was conducted by phone, it seems
uncertain whether it recur or not.
1) Among the patients who experienced recurrence, it is necessary to check how many patients
were confirmed by phone and by examination.
2) I wonder how many patients each received conventional hemorrhoidectomy and rubber band
ligation during treatment for patients with recurrence.
3. In the flow chart of patient selection, the authors need to write down the numbers except
for the patients lost to follow-up in the last line. Also, since the analysis includes patients with
follow-up loss, it is better to exclude the “analysis” phrase.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03062-1 (2023)

Title: The comparison of an accessible C-shaped partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy (C-PSH)
versus circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy (CSH) in patients with grade IV hemorrhoids: a
retrospective cohort study
Version: 4 Date: 25 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for asking me to review this paper
It is a well- written paper , clear , targeting outcomes clearly inspite being as cohort study lacking
perspective randomized trial advantages and this is my comment in details :
-Title : clear concise , illustration the type of study , My question what do the authors mean by
the word "accessible " ?
- Abstract : clear
- Keywords : are expressive
- introduction : clear , needs a sentence mentioning more about the standard surgical options for
haemorrhoids , the recent studies comparing the stapler to the routine surgery , then talk about
the study and the study question
- patients and methods :
* consenting process is clear
* The inclusion and exclusion criteria are clear
* the authors are clear about the reference standards for definitions they use in the study like
the diarrhoea or constipation
* surgical procedures and illustration were clear , My question is do the authors use the spatula
in only 1 zone or multiple zones of the Mucosa before Firing the stapler ? Also they do the
vaginal examination for the "married woman " , I think using the term "sexually active women
" may be broader .
* It looks like as mentioned in the discussion section that the excision of the skin tags is routinely
done after stapling , If so why you just do it in the CSH procedure while didn't do in the other
limb , may this be the cause of the pain difference between the 2 group with first bowel motion ?
*Figures and description were clear
- Results :
*tables are clear , data easily extracted
* the management of recurrent piles were very well described
* the consort flow chart is clear
Discussion : is clear , discussed well the result in the view of literature .However , no clear
mention about study limitations.
In my opinion , the paper is for  minor revision  .
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03062-1 (2023)

Title: The comparison of an accessible C-shaped partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy (C-PSH)
versus circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy (CSH) in patients with grade IV hemorrhoids: a
retrospective cohort study
Version: 5 Date: 01 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
It has been appropriately revised according to the reviewer's request
Therefore, It is acceptable.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03081-y (2023)

Title: Exploration of the causal effects of leukocyte telomere length and four gastrointestinal
diseases: A two-sample bidirectional Mendelian randomization study
Version: 2 Date: 04 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
This article designed a two-sample bidirectional Mendelian randomization study to explore the
potential causal relationship between leukocyte telomere length (LTL) and four gastrointestinal
diseases. The structure is relatively clear; the language needs better polish. I have the following
suggestions:
1. the horizontal coordinates of Figure 2 are too small and not well displayed, so I suggest to
modify it.
2. gene names need to be written in italics.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03081-y (2023)

Title: Exploration of the causal effects of leukocyte telomere length and four gastrointestinal
diseases: A two-sample bidirectional Mendelian randomization study
Version: 4 Date: 01 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors performed a bidirectional MR analysis using summary-level data to explore the
causal relationships between irritable bowel disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, peptic
ulcer disease,  non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and leukocyte telomere length. The approach
is optimally suited for this task and the research is very interesting. All previous comments
have been addressed. Compared to the first version of the manuscript, the authors added more
information, allowing the reader to better understand the manuscript. It seems to me that the
article greatly improved.
I only have some minor comments:
- Sometimes the term “countrols” is used instead of “controls”. Similarly, the term “forword”
is used instead of “forward”.
- In the paragraph “Forward MR analysis” of the “Methods” section, the term “Futhermore” is
used instead of “Furthermore”.
- In the paragraph “Reverse MR analysis” of the “Methods” section, the authors state “However,
we did not detect SNPs related to age”. I suggest removing this sentence. The SNPs are germinal
variations that are fixed during the entire life. Therefore, it is not possible to associate SNPs
with age in humans.
- In the paragraph “Sensitivity Analysis” of the “Methods” section, I suggest changing the
sentence “The power values for the MR analysis were computed…” into “Statistical power for
the MR analysis was computed…”.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03091-w (2023)

Title: Mean Platelet Volume and Total White Blood Cells as Diagnostic Biomarkers for Acute
Appendicitis at Omdurman Military Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Study - 2021
Version: 3 Date: 03 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with 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 - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The article is very interesting and it investigates about a new way
to conduct diagnosis for acute appendicitis. The novelty of the study is about the fact that
the authors present the newest result about unconventional markers not routinely used but that
should be used in the future when the results will be confirmed by further and validated studies.
The study protocol is clear and the group study is very wide.  So the results have great impact.
The overall impression is that the study is very well conducted
The findings about the use of MCV for diagnosis of acute appendicitis are of high impact and
scientifically sound.
The paper contributes significantly in investigating about new parameters for diagnosis and
follow up of common diseases such as acute appendicitis. The results presented should be used
for further studies in order to definitely validate them.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03091-w (2023)

Title: Mean Platelet Volume and Total White Blood Cells as Diagnostic Biomarkers for Acute
Appendicitis at Omdurman Military Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Study - 2021
Version: 7 Date: 14 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Relevant corrections have been made.
Health to your hands.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03074-x (2023)

Title: The long-term effect on surgery-free survival of biological compared to conventional
therapy in Crohn’s disease in real world-data: a retrospective study.
Version: 2 Date: 17 Jul 2023
Reviewer:  Andreas Stallmach
Reviewer's report:
In the paper titled "The long-term effect on surgery-free survival of biological compared to
conventional therapy in Crohn's disease in real-world data: a propensity-score matched study"
submitted by Valvano et al., the authors conducted a retrospective study comparing surgery-
free survival since the diagnosis of Crohn's disease (CD) between biological and conventional
therapies. They demonstrated that the introduction of biologicals appears to delay surgery but
has only a slight impact on the occurrence of surgery. The study was carefully conducted, and
the results are important for readers of BMC Gastroenterology. Minor suggestions can improve
the manuscript t
Minor point of criticism:
1. Abstract, background: Please delete the second statement in the first paragraph.
2. Statistical analysis: The authors mentioned that unmatched observations were excluded from
the analysis. However, it is unclear to me how many patients were included in the PSC matching
analysis. Please include this information in the abstract section.
3. Table 1 mentions 159 patients in the conventional arm, while Table 2 mentions 154 patients (I
think 154 is the correct number). Please indicate the number of ex-smokers (quitters) in Table 1.
4. Figure 3, 4 and 5 can be deleted.
5. Discussion: Please start the "Discussion" section with an introductory sentence.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03074-x (2023)

Title: The long-term effect on surgery-free survival of biological compared to conventional
therapy in Crohn’s disease in real world-data: a retrospective study.
Version: 2 Date: 04 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
There are quite a few problems with this study that make the conclusions unreliable.
1.The primary outcome was the surgery-free survival defined as the time from the diagnosis
to the first bowel resection. Therefore factors affecting the diagnosis also posed effects to the
surgery-free survival, since improved diagnostic methods over time (before vs. after 1998) had
led to an earlier age of diagnosis. The age at diagnosis among enrolled patients should be given.
Secondly, is there possibility to analyze the time from symptom to the first bowel resection?
2. The previous medication history of the biological patients deserved attention. Had they
received conventional therapy before? if so, this step-up treatment strategy signified more severe
disease in the biological group, which reduced the reliability of the conclusions. The disease
duration was longer in the biological compared to the conventional group, also consolidating
the above opinion.
3. Table 3 should be presented  in a better fashion. More specific descriptions should be given
for Figure 1 and 2.
4. Do not repeat the results (such as P value) in the Discussion section.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03074-x (2023)

Title: The long-term effect on surgery-free survival of biological compared to conventional
therapy in Crohn’s disease in real world-data: a retrospective study.
Version: 3 Date: 14 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
General comments to the Authors
Major comments
The title emphasizes the use of the propensity matching analysis. If the authors take the results
of the propensity matching analysis as the major conclusion of this study, they should revise the
conclusion as “no significant difference is found in terms of surgery-free survival”. However, the
current conclusion is that biological therapy appears to delay the first intestinal resection, which
is in accordance with the Kaplan-Meier estimate showing that the patients in the biological arm
had a longer surgery-free survival than those in the conventional arm.
In the study design, the authors included all the patients with a diagnosis of CD treated with a
biological drug before their first intestinal resection in the biological arm. The authors should
define the biologics arm in more details. It should include biologics alone or conventional
therapy combined with biologics.
To compare the long-term effect on surgery-free survival of biological and conventional therapy
in Crohn’s disease, the authors performed the survival analysis by drawing the K-M curve. But
Cox regression should be also performed to calculate the HR values and 95 %CI.
There are too many paragraphs in the text. The authors should merge them appropriately.
Minor comments
ABSTRACT
In the sentence “This study shows that the introduction of biological therapy had only a
slight……”, “had” should be revised as “has”. Similar mistakes can be readily seen.
INTRODUCTION
In the sentence “an integration between conventional therapy, biological therapy, nutritional/
supplementation intervention and surgery are the therapeutic tools……”, “an integration” should
be changed into “integration”, and “are the therapeutic tools” should be revised as “is the
therapeutic tool”.
METHODS
In the outcome measures and data sources section, in the sentence “Our primary outcome was
the evaluation of the surgery-free survival since CD diagnosis to the first bowel resection, among
the two following patients’ arms”, “among” should be revised as “between”.
DISCUSSION
In the sentence “…… and we could therefore not distinguish between patients in stable remission
or patients with a remittent active disease”, “or” should be revised as “and”.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03074-x (2023)

Title: The long-term effect on surgery-free survival of biological compared to conventional
therapy in Crohn’s disease in real world-data: a retrospective study.
Version: 3 Date: 16 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Andreas Stallmach
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript essentially addresses my comments adequately, but I still consider
Figure 4 and 5 to be unnecessary.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02988-w (2023)

Title: Identifying inflammatory bowel disease patients at risk of metabolic dysfunction-
associated fatty liver disease: usefulness of non-invasive steatosis predictive scores.
Version: 3 Date: 19 Jun 2023
Reviewer:  Tajana Filipec Kanizaj
Reviewer's report:
The paper represents cross-sectional study evaluating the performances of MAFLD screening
score (MAFLD-S), Fatty Liver Index (FLI), Hepatic Steatosis Index (HSI) and Clinical
Prediction Tool for NAFLD in Crohn’s Disease (CPN-CD) for identifying the presence of
MAFLD in IBD patients.
The authors showed a high prevalence of MAFLD in the IBD population implying either specific
pathogenetic mechanisms associated with IBD or a higher prevalence of MeS components in
this population? Which of the proposed mechanisms do the authors consider more relevant?
Although conventional NITs have proven to be effective in this population as well, do the authors
think that there should be specific tests for this population that include the specificities of IBD?
Bearing in mind the specifics of nutritional support in the treatment of IBD, do the authors
think that screening for MAFLD in the IBD population can have clinical consequences for the
treatment of IBD patients?
Do the authors have knowledge about presence of liver biopsy findings in these patients or non-
invasive tests were only ones performed?
The title, abstract, manuscript organization, discussion, tables, figures and references are
appropriate.
Language requires significant polishing to achieve precision, clarity and grammatical
correctness.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02988-w (2023)

Title: Identifying inflammatory bowel disease patients at risk of metabolic dysfunction-
associated fatty liver disease: usefulness of non-invasive steatosis predictive scores.
Version: 3 Date: 04 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
The work is a good non-invasive approach to identify the group of IBD  patients suffering from
MAFLD as well; hence, preventive measures could be applied to avoid farther deterioration of
their health conditions.
Nevertheless, there are few typographical/factual errors which are quite prominent,
i) In the 'INTRODUCTION', in paragraph 6, there are repetition of sentences of same meaning.
"Unavailability of Ultrasound to the physicians" - this statement is quite a strong negative
statement, because portable ultrasound systems are quite cheap and easily available nowadays.
ii) In the 'METHODS' , under the 'Statistical analysis' paragraph, the sentence "calculated the
respectively Youden index" make no sense. Corrections will be appreciated.
iii) In the 'RESULTS', in the 6th and 7th paragraph, the use/arrangements of the first and third
brackets should be corrected.
iv) The figure 5 should be corrected - when the patients are "included/excluded", it should be
mentioned properly and diagrammatically represented.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02988-w (2023)

Title: Identifying inflammatory bowel disease patients at risk of metabolic dysfunction-
associated fatty liver disease: usefulness of non-invasive steatosis predictive scores.
Version: 4 Date: 27 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
As I had mentioned earlier in my previous review report that this is a very promising work which
has a non-invasive approach of detecting the group of IBD patients having a co-morbidity of
MAFLD.
After the revision by the authors, I think it is now appropriate to be published without any farther
delay.