JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03061-2 (2023)

Title: Convenient method to improve efficiency of lymph node examination after gastrectomy
with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer
Version: 2 Date: 27 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Shunji Endo
Reviewer's report:
This is a unique paper about lymph node examination using an electronic device, and I read it
with great interest.
I think it's a wonderful invention, but an examination table, a LN grouping table, and a specimen
measurement table were not electronic and used in the conventional manual method in many
institutions. Compared to the manual method, the key point is that the lymph nodes are easier to
see by illuminating them with a backlight, right? If so, the purpose of this research is “to examine
the usefulness of backlights'' rather than “to examine the usefulness of electronic devices,'' and
the conclusion is “backlights were useful for identifying lymph nodes,” isn't it?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03070-1 (2023)

Title: Effect of early antibiotic treatment strategy on prognosis of acute pancreatitis
Version: 1 Date: 15 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Alberto Maringhini
Reviewer's report:
In this paper Authors retrospectively compare the use of antibiotic in mortality and prognosis of
acute pancreatitis. Furthermore they try to identify the best antibiotic to prevent complication.
Most of their population had antibiotic therapy.
They do not know why most of them were treated with antibiotics .
The design of this study cannot permit to find the aims of the authors
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03068-9 (2023)

Title: 3 L split-dose polyethylene glycol is superior to 2 L polyethylene glycol in colonoscopic
bowel preparation in relatively high-BMI (# 24 kg/m2) individuals:A multicenter randomized
controlled trial
Version: 1 Date: 19 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Konosuke Nakaji
Reviewer's report:
This article has described the feasibility of comparison of different doses of colonoscopy
preparation. This study is a prospective multicenter subgroup analysis of the previous research,
which focused on relatively obese patients in China. It is an exciting study; however, this article
has some concerns. 1. The title “relatively high BMI” is not well understood. Please present
specific values. 2. The authors should present examples of original figures on the cleansing level
of colonoscopy since it relates to the primary outcome. 3. What kind of colonoscopy (e.g., type,
company name) is used in each responsible facility? Did they use NBI or magnifying methods
to detect polyps or just in white light? Are these united in each facility? 4. The withdrawing
time from the cecum of coloscopy influences the ADR. How long did withdraw colonoscopy
from the cecum to the anus approximately? Were they concerned with this study protocol? 5.
They excluded patients with severe cardiac, pulmonary, and renal dysfunction. Please present
specific values in these criteria (e.g., eGFR#30). 6. In the demographics, please preset the ratio
of the degree of liver cirrhosis (e.g., Child classification)
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03068-9 (2023)

Title: 3 L split-dose polyethylene glycol is superior to 2 L polyethylene glycol in colonoscopic
bowel preparation in relatively high-BMI (# 24 kg/m2) individuals:A multicenter randomized
controlled trial
Version: 1 Date: 01 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Review of the manuscript d0bc2882-6522-4daa-a2ba-d645dc9b41b5
3 L split-dose polyethylene glycol is superior to 2 L polyethylene glycol in colonoscopic bowel
preparation in relatively high-BMI individuals: A multicenter randomized controlled trial.
By Hailin Yan, et al.
This large multicenter single-blinded randomized controlled trial tried to clear the effectiveness
of 3 L split-dose PEG for adequate bowel cleansing during colonoscopy preparation. 3 L split-
dose PEG improves preparation scale than 2 L dose PEG in high-BMI individuals, especially
in those with a high BMI of 25-29.9 kg/m2.
Though this large-sample trial has been competently conducted and is interesting, it has several
problems as indicated below.
General comments
INTRODUCTION:
While it is still controversial whether obesity affects preparation for colonoscopy as the authors
wrote in their manuscript, there is a lack of explanation as to why they intended to evaluate
3 L split-dose PEG for the preparation. Many methods to enhance the preparation (add other
laxatives, use special meals for the colonoscopy, use 4 L PEG, etc.) are available, but why 3 L
split-dose PEG was so important?
RESULTS:
Insufficient information on patient characteristics. Additional information is also required
regarding the history of abdominal surgery other than intestinal resection (gynecological
surgery, nephrectomy) and daily use of laxatives. Endoscopic findings such as diverticulosis,
tumors, or stenosis that may affect preparation should be noted as well.
DISCUSSION:
As the authors indicated, 81.2% of the rate of adequacy is not enough, and thus would it be
better to use a 4L regimen or change the oral preparation than a 3L regimen? The authors should
mention this issue and discuss it. Moreover, it seems the success rate of adequate preparation
did not depend on BMI in the 2L group.
Lack of clear conclusion. Please state your conclusion clearly. What did you ultimately want
to insist on with this paper?
Specific comment
I could not understand the meaning of the sentence in P.12 L.12 “study on the by…”
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03068-9 (2023)

Title: 3 L split-dose polyethylene glycol is superior to 2 L polyethylene glycol in colonoscopic
bowel preparation in relatively high-BMI (# 24 kg/m2) individuals:A multicenter randomized
controlled trial
Version: 2 Date: 15 Nov 2023
Reviewer:  Konosuke Nakaji
Reviewer's report:
The authors have responded to the reviewers' questions appropriately and revised them.  No
additional comments are noted.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03068-9 (2023)

Title: 3 L split-dose polyethylene glycol is superior to 2 L polyethylene glycol in colonoscopic
bowel preparation in relatively high-BMI (# 24 kg/m2) individuals:A multicenter randomized
controlled trial
Version: 2 Date: 17 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for re-submission. This manuscript has been well revised and is acceptable for
publication after minor revision.
I recommend the last sentence in the second paragraph in DISCUSSION (From “Due to the
smaller size …” to “…with a 2 L PGE regimen”) should be inserted in the last part of the third
paragraph in the INTRODUCTION (after “…when most patients received a split dose 3 L PEG
solution [7]”). I believe it is a relatively structured explanation than before.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03058-x (2023)

Title: Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision plus One-Port Laparoscopic
Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study with Conventional
Laparoscopic Surgery
Version: 0 Date: 25 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. Regarding patients selection for SILS+1 or CLS, how was it decided?  Please provide the
percentage or number of cases in which SILS+1 and CLS were performed annually at your
institution.
2. Regarding follow-up, please describe indications and medications for postoperative adjuvant
chemotherapy.
3. In the discussion, it is stated that “Whereas, in SILS + 1, the procedure was entirely
coordinated and conducted by the highly experienced primary surgeon, thus avoiding the
dangerous situations caused by unskilled assistants”. I have a concern that in CLS, an
experienced surgeon did not perform the operation but participated as an assistant, and that the
operation was performed by a resident or junior surgeon, resulting in a longer operation time
and a higher estimated blood loss than in SILS+1?
4. In the last paragraph, it is stated that “Thus, well-designed multi-center large-scale prospective
randomized controlled trials are still needed to further establish the benefits of SILS + 1 in
colorectal cancer.” This sentence is ideal, but realistically, in the era of robotic surgery, it would
be difficult to conduct such a randomized controlled trial comparing SILS+1 and CLS. Wouldn't
it be better to have high-quality clinical trials that are feasible, rather than stating ideals that are
difficult to achieve?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03058-x (2023)

Title: Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision plus One-Port Laparoscopic
Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study with Conventional
Laparoscopic Surgery
Version: 0 Date: 28 Jul 2023
Reviewer:  Yasuhiro Ishiyama
Reviewer's report:
The paper focuses on SILS puls one. It`s a very interesting and important study. The report on
the long-term results is particularly useful.
You used propensity matching and adjusted for bias, but were there any significant differences
in results between the right side and the left side?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03058-x (2023)

Title: Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision plus One-Port Laparoscopic
Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study with Conventional
Laparoscopic Surgery
Version: 0 Date: 31 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Gianandrea Baldazzi
Reviewer's report:
We congratulate the authors for the interesting experience and the high number of cases enrolled.
Some questions.
1) Does the inclusion only of normal weight patients derive from the fact that the proposed
technique is not feasible in overweight or obese patients? (which unfortunately represent a not
low percentage in the western world)
2) It is possible to better explain what the positioning of . "slings of the transverse mesocolon in
right- and left-hemicolectomy were applied with purse suturing needles"?
3) Why is an intracorporeal anastomosis not performed in the right hemicolectomy (which has
long been considered the best technique)?
4) Is it correct to always consider a SILS+1 procedure in patients in which trocars have been
added? Wouldn't it be more correct to consider them as a conversion towards the CLS procedure?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03058-x (2023)

Title: Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision plus One-Port Laparoscopic
Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study with Conventional
Laparoscopic Surgery
Version: 1 Date: 06 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
No comment
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03010-z (2023)

Title: A survey on the current status of Helicobacter pylori infection in households in Hainan
Province, China
Version: 1 Date: 13 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors assessed the prevalence of Helicobacter pylori (Hp) infection at the household level
in Hainan Province and identify the factors that contribute to its spread. A total of 421 families,
comprising 1355 individuals, were tested for Hp infection across five cities in Hainan Province
between July 2021 and April 2022. They concluded that Hp infection was prevalent among
Hainan families, and interaction with infected family members may be the primary cause of
transmission.
The paper is interesting and written well. This paper may be one of the crucial pieces of evidence
for Hp infection in China. However, the following points should be addressed.
Major
1. In such kind of study, the selection method of the target population is one of the important
points. The authors should describe the method in detail.
2. In this study, paternal infection and maternal infection were risk factors for child infection,
with ORs of 2.93 (1.29-6.62) and 2.51 (1.07-5.89), respectively. This is an exciting point. As
the authors described, maternal infection has been reported to be one of the risk factors. Why
paternal infection is a more vital risk factor than maternal infection in the present study? The
authors should discuss this point.
3. The limitations of this study should be addressed.
Minor
1. Title and L3, P2
…in Hainan Province: …in Hainan Province, China
2. In the Methods of Abstract section, the authors should describe the questionnaire items briefly.
3. The order of the table should be changed. In the present manuscript, the order is Table 1,
3, then 2.
4. L2, P8
#100,000: #100,000 yuan
5. L2 below the bottom, P4
Helicobacter pylori (Hp): Hp
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03010-z (2023)

Title: A survey on the current status of Helicobacter pylori infection in households in Hainan
Province, China
Version: 1 Date: 21 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Hang Viet Dao
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is well written with the clear study aims and methods.
The situation of H.pylori infection in the family and risk factors relating to lifestyle is  very
important to consider how to prevent re-infection.
There are some minor comments for the authors to consider:
- Add on the questionnaires in the appendix of the manuscript
- For the Methods, can the authors clarify the specificity, sensitivity of fecal antigen test  using.
- For the Results, Table 2 have some metrics such as Percentage of family members tested for
H.pylori or with higher education seems confusing with median 0.19 and 0.54? I think it can
be explained in the results as text.
- The Figures now have some line graphs to illustrate the prevalence of H.pylori infection, the
authors can consider to change the style because it can make confusions about the change of
prevalence during time.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03064-z (2023)

Title: Effect of Helicobacter pylori Eradication evaluated using Magnifying Endoscopy with
Narrow- Band Imaging in Mixed-type Early Gastric Cancer
Version: 0 Date: 22 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review your manuscript with excellent content.
I have no special remarks, not only for the endoscopic evaluation, but also for the detailed
pathology evaluation.
I was surprised that the percentage of NCE was higher than I had expected, even in the non-
eradicated group.
I would just ask for one correction.
Please confirm only the following points
#Table 4# U-MIX EGCs mesh pattern 3#38%#
 P12 line 209#  # with  U-MIX EGC (76% vs 36%, p=0.038), #
 # # with  U-MIX EGC (76% vs 38%, p=0.038), #
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03064-z (2023)

Title: Effect of Helicobacter pylori Eradication evaluated using Magnifying Endoscopy with
Narrow- Band Imaging in Mixed-type Early Gastric Cancer
Version: 0 Date: 05 Nov 2023
Reviewer:  Jun-Hyung Cho
Reviewer's report:
I think that the authors showed the valuable data for magnifying NBI finding of mixed-type EGC
with pathologic review. However, some study limitation was found due to the characteristics of
this retrospective study as below;
First, please the characteristics of EGC treated with ESD in the hospital before mixed-type EGC
(n = 311 cases). For example, the numbers of intestinal and diffuse-type EGC cases in Figure 3
are required although they are excluded from this study.
Second, the inflammatory cell infiltration (normal-mild) of neutrophil and monoclear cells is
hard to be understood in the method section, Table 1, 2. Were these pathological analysis
performed in the resected ESD specimen or other biopsy sites? Please describe the methodology
and pathological study process in detail, because statistical significance of only this variable was
found between two groups.
Third, how many cancerous findings among five (loop, mesh, extended, waxy, and corkscrew)
were used in Table 3? Please describe the numbers of corresponding finding were one-two in
D-mix EGC and one-three in U-mix EGC.
Fourth, I think the conclusion in the abstract was overrated on the basis of data results. The last
sentence (42-44 in page 3) is generally well-known in diagnosing EGC regardless of mix-type.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03064-z (2023)

Title: Effect of Helicobacter pylori Eradication evaluated using Magnifying Endoscopy with
Narrow- Band Imaging in Mixed-type Early Gastric Cancer
Version: 2 Date: 22 Nov 2023
Reviewer:  Jun-Hyung Cho
Reviewer's report:
The authors adequately address my points.
I have no additional comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03064-z (2023)

Title: Effect of Helicobacter pylori Eradication evaluated using Magnifying Endoscopy with
Narrow- Band Imaging in Mixed-type Early Gastric Cancer
Version: 2 Date: 27 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate for giving me the opportunity reviewing this interesting manuscript.
The revised manuscript has been well.
I have no specific questions about your manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03057-y (2023)

Title: Enhanced recovery after surgery in congenital duodenal obstruction
Version: 1 Date: 11 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer’s comment
This original article was explored the clinical application of enhanced recovery after surgery
(ERAS) in pediatric patients with congenital upper gastrointestinal obstruction. ERAS is an
aggressive postoperative management which should be performed as much as possible. The
most important thing in this research is the construction of the research design. In that respect,
this study provides a sufficient explanation and is worthy of evaluation. Although the number of
cases is small, I think the statistical analysis reflects a more reasonable result than studies with
an extremely large number of cases. I'd like to ask for a minor revision, so I'll list it below.
1) Table 1
Can you list the parts common to the ERAS group and the control group together without
dividing them into table cells? It's easy to understand what the two groups have in common.
2) Study subjects, Results
The inclusion/exclusion criteria are carefully written. Can you provide the diseases that were
included as a result? I think it is very important to understand which disease the results are
reflected for.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03057-y (2023)

Title: Enhanced recovery after surgery in congenital duodenal obstruction
Version: 1 Date: 18 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Khaled Bahaaeldin
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your work, fast tracking neonates who underwent surgery is an important
paradigm shift.
Firstly, I would recommend adding data to the studied groups, particularly the time of operative
intervention in hours as mean and standard deviation. Secondly, I urge you to use precise
objective values e.g. the temperature of the saline solution instead of vague subjective terms.
What is the difference in body temperature management between the two groups (your
benchmark is the same core temperature of 36 degrees)?
Finally, readers would keenly anticipate an explanation for the significant differences between
the two groups as regards the hospital stay, bowel movement, parenteral nutrition and time to
first breast feeding.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03057-y (2023)

Title: Enhanced recovery after surgery in congenital duodenal obstruction
Version: 1 Date: 20 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Hamid Reza Foroutan
Reviewer's report:
Ref: Submission ID 2cbb7bfe-9b0a-48ea-9156-ae42945c353b
I reviewed the manuscript and I think it is a new and practical and well organized. So I
recommend the paper for publication as it is.
Best regards
HAMIDREZA Foroutan
Pediatric Surgeon
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03057-y (2023)

Title: Enhanced recovery after surgery in congenital duodenal obstruction
Version: 2 Date: 24 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Khaled Bahaaeldin
Reviewer's report:
Your submission highlights a particularly important concept, which is fast-tracking surgeries in
the pediatric and neonatal age group.
Still looking for specific causation or correlation for the statistical differences shown in the
results between the two groups. Readers would be eager to see actionable items they can use
to replicate your results.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03053-2 (2023)

Title: Risk factors for metachronous colorectal cancer and advanced neoplasia following
primary colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 05 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
In this article, Zhang explored the clinical, environmental and  and endoscopic risk factors of
metachronous CRC and advanced neoplasia. In general, the article is well written with sound
methodology. My only questions are:
1.Why the authors chose risk ratio, rather than odds ratio as the primary outcome with most
included studies being retrospective cohort?
2.How did the authors transplate different outcome measurem (HR, OR, and RR) in different
studies into common parameter for meta-analysis?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03053-2 (2023)

Title: Risk factors for metachronous colorectal cancer and advanced neoplasia following
primary colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 09 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a comprehensive, yet difficult study design since few publications in the literature include
all the parameters that the authors want to include in their study. Consequently, as the authors
acknowledged, the study is mostly inconclusive.
For pathologic review, I assume the study only included cases without any follow-up/additional
treatment after the curative surgical procedure.  Please specify if that is the case.  I also don't
quite understand the difference between TNM staging versus T staging in the report, the data
there appear to be conflicted.
I think it would be beneficial for the journal to invite a biostatistician to review this study and
I defer the comments on the statistical data to a statistician.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03053-2 (2023)

Title: Risk factors for metachronous colorectal cancer and advanced neoplasia following
primary colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 10 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
STATISTICAL REVIEWER ASSESSMENT:
Is the study design appropriate for the research question (considering whether the analyzed
population accurately reflects the design and whether you see any problems with control/
comparison groups, e.g., likely confounders)?
Yes - overall design, population, and control groups are appropriate
Are methodologies adequate and well implemented (considering whether assumptions are
addressed and whether analyses are robust)?
Yes - methodologies are adequate and well implemented, assumptions are addressed, analysis
is robust
Are the analyses adequately communicated (considering whether reporting details are adequate
and whether figures and tables are well labeled and described)?
No - there are minor issues
Does the interpretation accurately reflect the analyses without overstatement (considering
whether limitations/bias are acknowledged and whether accurate descriptors, e.g., 'significant',
are used)?
Yes - interpretation accurately reflects analyses, limitations/bias are acknowledged, accurate
descriptors are used
Could an appropriately REVISED version of this work represent a statistically sound
contribution?
Probably - with minor revisions
STATISTICAL REVIEWER COMMENTS:
In general, this systematic review and meta-analysis were well reported, followed the PRISMA
guidelines, and proper statistical methods were used. However, there are some issues that need
further clarification from the authors.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
1. Was the protocol of the systematic review and meta-analysis registered in any publicly
accessible database?
Methods (Abstract):
2. Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review.
3. Specify the time period for literature searching.
4. Specify the methods used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.
Results (Abstract):
5. Provide the total number of participants in the included studies, and briefly summarize relevant
characteristics of these studies.
Conclusion (Abstract):
6, Provide a brief summary of the limitations of the evidence included in the review, such as
study risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision.
Methods (Main Text):
7. Consider incorporating "Definitions" into the "Eligibility criteria" section.
8. Specify whether language restrictions were applied to the literature search.
9. Split the "Searches" section into "Searches" and "Screening" for clarity.
10. Provide details of any automation tools used in the data extraction process, if applicable.
11. Since the authors aimed to include RCTs in the meta-analysis (though couldn't find any),
please provide information on the tool that they intended to use to assess the risk of bias for
RCTs.
12. In addition to RR, OR, and HR, the absolute risk difference should be also considered as
an effect measure.
13. Describe the method used to handle missing statistics, if applicable.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03053-2 (2023)

Title: Risk factors for metachronous colorectal cancer and advanced neoplasia following
primary colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 03 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
STATISTICAL REVIEWER ASSESSMENT:
Is the study design appropriate for the research question (considering whether the analyzed
population accurately reflects the design and whether you see any problems with control/
comparison groups, e.g., likely confounders)?
Yes - overall design, population, and control groups are appropriate
Are methodologies adequate and well implemented (considering whether assumptions are
addressed and whether analyses are robust)?
Yes - methodologies are adequate and well implemented, assumptions are addressed, analysis
is robust
Are the analyses adequately communicated (considering whether reporting details are adequate
and whether figures and tables are well labeled and described)?
Yes - important reporting details are present, analyses are adequately communicated, figures
and tables are well labeled and described
Does the interpretation accurately reflect the analyses without overstatement (considering
whether limitations/bias are acknowledged and whether accurate descriptors, e.g., 'significant',
are used)?
Yes - interpretation accurately reflects analyses, limitations/bias are acknowledged, accurate
descriptors are used
Could an appropriately REVISED version of this work represent a statistically sound
contribution?
Probably - with minor revisions
STATISTICAL REVIEWER COMMENTS:
I appreciate very much that the authors responded to my comments thoroughly. I’m satisfied
with the current version and have no more major comments. However, I suggest that the authors
indicate the period of literature searching in both the abstract and methods, something like “The
searching period was set from XXXX to XX, 20XX.”
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
I suggest that the authors indicate the period of literature searching in both the abstract and
methods, something like “The searching period was set from XXX to XX, 20XX.”
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03053-2 (2023)

Title: Risk factors for metachronous colorectal cancer and advanced neoplasia following
primary colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 14 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
STATISTICAL REVIEWER ASSESSMENT:
Is the study design appropriate for the research question (considering whether the analyzed
population accurately reflects the design and whether you see any problems with control/
comparison groups, e.g., likely confounders)?
Yes - overall design, population, and control groups are appropriate
Are methodologies adequate and well implemented (considering whether assumptions are
addressed and whether analyses are robust)?
Yes - methodologies are adequate and well implemented, assumptions are addressed, analysis
is robust
Are the analyses adequately communicated (considering whether reporting details are adequate
and whether figures and tables are well labeled and described)?
Yes - important reporting details are present, analyses are adequately communicated, figures
and tables are well labeled and described
Does the interpretation accurately reflect the analyses without overstatement (considering
whether limitations/bias are acknowledged and whether accurate descriptors, e.g., 'significant',
are used)?
Yes - interpretation accurately reflects analyses, limitations/bias are acknowledged, accurate
descriptors are used
Could an appropriately REVISED version of this work represent a statistically sound
contribution?
Yes - current version has sound statistics
STATISTICAL REVIEWER COMMENTS:
The revisions made have adequately addressed my previous comments. I am content with the
current version.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
I have no more comments to add.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03056-z (2023)

Title: A safe and simple exposure and Pringle maneuver in laparoscopic anatomical liver
resection of segment 7
Version: 2 Date: 05 May 2023
Reviewer:  Menggang Liu
Reviewer's report:
I have read with interest the article by Nan You and colleagues entitled “A safe and simple
exposure and Pringle maneuver in laparoscopic anatomical liver resection of segment 7”. The
authors propose an interesting technique for improve the exposuring of S7 and bleeding control.
The authors are to be congratulated for the great effort in producing an original report on a new
technique that contributes to the present literature in this particular field. I agree to publish the
article. However, some aspects that should be revised.
Comments
1.Results should be interpreted with caution; some bias could be introduced by sample size and
selection. Study limitations should be described and summarized in Discussion section.
2.Can this technique be used in other segment?
3.Were all patients discussed before treatment in a Multidisciplinary Tumor Board? Please
clarify.
4.If this was a retrospective study, why not evaluate more patients over a longer period of time?
5.English language usage in the manuscript should be revised. There are some important
grammatical errors.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03056-z (2023)

Title: A safe and simple exposure and Pringle maneuver in laparoscopic anatomical liver
resection of segment 7
Version: 2 Date: 21 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. More language corrections is needed before the publication
2. Self-designed laparoscopic first hepatic hilum occlusion device should be described more
clearly.
A. What is the benefit/difference and efficacy compared to existing method?
B. Is the difference from the existing method is the location of the incision? Difference of the
materials used? Could it be more clearly stated?
C. How does the rotation of the liver achieved? Could it be described more clearly?
3.  If there is risk of crushing tumor, how do you compare the safety and result of the operations
with and without crushing?
4. Some statements in the conclusion part seems to be better discussed in discussion session.
5. It could be more helpful when the video shows how to apply the device and how it rotates the
liver more clearly. Conclusion seems not matching the aim of the study well. Can you please
match more clearly?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03056-z (2023)

Title: A safe and simple exposure and Pringle maneuver in laparoscopic anatomical liver
resection of segment 7
Version: 4 Date: 03 Jul 2023
Reviewer:  Menggang Liu
Reviewer's report:
The questions, which I asked, have benn answered well. The MS was also revised as my advice.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03056-z (2023)

Title: A safe and simple exposure and Pringle maneuver in laparoscopic anatomical liver
resection of segment 7
Version: 4 Date: 21 Sep 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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have investigated the use of a novel device to facilitate
laparoscopic liver resection. The main strength is the well defined patient population, and follow
up.
Although the article is interesting and important, the writing style could be improved.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Process of using the device is not clear. Need to be explained better.
Statistical analysis - What was done needs to be described briefly.
The style of writing needs improvement.
* ""To better rotating right liver""
* ""full course of postoperative hepatic function protection"" - what is this?
* hematischesis - what's this?
Added comments:
Objective – Objective is clear
Methodology – This is a retrospective review, so methodology is appropriate. Their description
on their device use is unclear, and needs to be revised.
sample size – Retrospective review, so sample size is not a concern.
Discussion – Writing style needs improvement.
Other – Few specific examples of language issues were highlighted, but the overall writing needs
to be improved.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03056-z (2023)

Title: A safe and simple exposure and Pringle maneuver in laparoscopic anatomical liver
resection of segment 7
Version: 6 Date: 12 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?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The auhtors have satisfactorily answered the queries raised by
myself, and the other reviewer.
I think it can now be considered for publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03032-7 (2023)

Title: Effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab induction with or without budesonide in patients
with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease in Europe: a retrospective observational
study
Version: 1 Date: 01 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
This study describes a retrospective study that focuses on a very practical topic about the best
approach during the induction with vedolizumab. In particular, the authors have evaluated if
budesonide can improve clinical remission rates. I have some comments that I would like to
share with the authors:
Revisión BMC
- The study is underpowered to find differences according to the sample size calculation, and
this is not included as a comment or limitation in the Discussion.
- In 13% of patients disease was classified as L2 (colonic), so the use of budesonide here can
be controversial.
- In patients starting VDZ therapy in this cohort, only 7-11% of patients had prior exposure
to systemic steroids, while 83-89% had been exposed to anti-TNF. This results do not clearly
match, as this subset of patients in clinical practice would be expected to receive steroids in
more than 11% of them in the past.
- Introduction: 5ASA are not recommended as a medical treatment for CD, e.g. ECCO
guidelines.
- Were any of these patients treated with VDZ for perianal disease as the main indication?
- Can the authors explain the reasoning behind using these scores and approach in the definition
of clinical remission?
- BUD dosing regimens are not described. This is  important because different doses and duration
were used, and they also describe off-label use of >9 mg/day in some cases.
- Patients receiving VDZ+BUD may be expected to be those with L1 disease and probably also
with more severe disease. How was this aspect adjusted in the study?
- Results: “In a multivariate analysis, the latter was the only nominal difference between patients
prescribed VDZ+BUD compared with VDZ alone (OR=0.28; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.91; p=0.0954).”
The results shown in the confidence interval and p-value do not match. According to the CI,
there should be statistically significant differences, but p-value is >0.05.
- According to the funding by pharma, it should be also declared the role of this company in
the study.
- References:
o Ref 1 does not seem to be the most appropriate
o Ref 3 from 2011 does not reflect “current” treatment
o Ref 5 are not the last ECCO guidelines
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03032-7 (2023)

Title: Effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab induction with or without budesonide in patients
with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease in Europe: a retrospective observational
study
Version: 2 Date: 09 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors have correctly addressed all my previous comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02972-4 (2023)

Title: Acute pancreatitis in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm: A single-center
retrospective cohort study with systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 09 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
This study retrospectively analyzed 47 patients with IPMN in their center and meta-analyzed
5 case-control studies to explore the effect of acute pancreatitis on the cancerization of IPMN.
They found that AP could accelerate the canceration of IPMN.
# The introduction part should be revised thoroughly so as to clearly verify the background and
the purpose of this study.
# All of the manuscript should be carefully checked for grammar mistakes.
# Which databases were searched on?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02972-4 (2023)

Title: Acute pancreatitis in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm: A single-center
retrospective cohort study with systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 6 Date: 11 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors have updated their manuscript according to the suggestions, however one minor
aspect should still be considered;
1. PRISMA guideline was updated in 2020 please use that one- i am adding here a link to reach
it:  http://www.prisma-statement.org/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03054-1 (2023)

Title: Macrophage polarization toward M1 phenotype in T cell transfer colitis model
Version: 1 Date: 23 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Hui HAN
Reviewer's report:
In their manuscript, Ebihara and colleagues conducted research to investigate the role of
macrophages (MFs) in a preclinical model of colitis. The experimental design of the animal
model appears well-reasoned, incorporating a comprehensive range of parameters, including
colonoscopy, histology, the measurement of pro-inflammatory cytokines, and flow cytometry.
However, it is essential to note that this animal model has been extensively characterized in
previous studies. Overall, the manuscript is well-written and exhibits minimal errors.
Here are some comments aimed at enhancing the manuscript:
1. Providing an introductory section that outlines the specific role of MFs in colitis development
and discusses the challenges and treatment options for colitis by targeting MFs would greatly
benefit the reader's understanding.
2. What are the reasons behind the increase in M1 MFs in this animal model. Are there any
potential interactions between transferred T cells and MFs?
3. Whether the changes in MF markers observed in this model are replicable in human colitis.
This can be explored by comparing the findings to publicly available datasets.
4. It is unclear the rationale behind using dimension reduction techniques for the flow cytometry
data analysis. If the authors are primarily focused on one or two M1 and M2 markers, it may
be unnecessary.
5. In the context of the in vitro experiment, whether there are any other T cell activation markers
up regulated. It would be helpful if authors could clarify the T cell subsets they differentiated
into.
6. Are there any explanations on decreasing in M2 MFs? Is it possible that some M2 MFs
transition into the M1 phenotype during the progression of the disease?
7. In the discussion section, there's no need to reference specific figure numbers.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03054-1 (2023)

Title: Macrophage polarization toward M1 phenotype in T cell transfer colitis model
Version: 1 Date: 28 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript from Ebihara et al. aimed to investigate the macrophage function in a T
cell transfer colitis murine model, and found that the macrophages polarized toward the M1
phenotype in the colonic LP. The polarized macrophages also activated the colitogenic T cells,
which may contribute to disease progression and could be a potential therapeutic target. This
manuscript is well-written, and elucidated the unappreciated role of macrophages in a T cell
transfer colitis model. This study has the potential to lead to several subsequent projects in
order to study more mechanisms and therapeutic measures. However, significant revisions are
suggested to improve the quality of the manuscript.
1. The presentation of flow cytometry data needs to be improved significantly. In figure 3,
instead of using exact numbers to calculate macrophages, inflammatory monocytes, neutrophils,
and T cells. The author should consider using their ratio to CD45+ cells (such as number of
macrophages/number of CD45+ cells), that would be a more objective way to present.
2. The gating strategies among figure 3 (F-I) and figure 3 (J-M) are different, the author should
standardized the gating, or explain why using different strategies. In order to quantify the
intracellular cytokines, it is advised to use Mean, or Median, Fluorescence Intensity (MFI).
3. Since CD11c is also a marker for DCs, and DCs are considered as innate immune cells,
the author may want to discuss how they differentiate DCs and M1 macrophages from CD11c
positive cells.
4. Regarding the histological score of colitis, it is better to list the individual score for epithelial
hyperplasia, goblet cell and crypt loss and inflammatory infiltration. This will help understand
which of the three criteria is the main contributer to the increased histological score. Arrows are
suggested to mark the different histological changes in panels of F, G and H from figure 1.
5. In spite the widely recognized role of T cells in IBD, more discussions on the role of
macrophages IBD onset and progression need be added.
6. Some discussion on the available therapeutic strategies targeting macrophage polarization
will be appreciated.
7. Figure 4 is pack with panel, it is advised to separate into a new figure.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03054-1 (2023)

Title: Macrophage polarization toward M1 phenotype in T cell transfer colitis model
Version: 1 Date: 29 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Mousumi Mandal
Reviewer's report:
The present study designed to explore macrophage polarization toward M1 phenotype in T
cell transfer colitis model. Authors have analyzed the inflammatory pattern (colonoscopy and
histology), inflammatory cell phenotype by flowcytometry and the levels of inflammatory
markers. They concluded that M1 macrophage polarization in the colonic lamina propria and
this M1 phenotype play vital role in T cell transfer colitis model. The study was well conducted,
and their findings could support the conclusion. However, several points need to be improved.
Please, see below the comments.
1. Colonoscopic pictures (Fig1. B-D) are needed to keep in first (Fig1. A) from where the scores
have been analyzed. Similarly, histological score plot should be represented after the histological
images in figure1.
2. Gating strategy for the flowcytometric analysis of LP immune cells has been clearly depicted
in Fig3A and the numbers of colonic LP macrophages, inflammatory monocytes neutrophils and
T cells has been analyzed in Fig3B–E. It will be good to add the exact flow cytometric dot plots
of these cells for better visualization. In that case Fig3 might be divided to another figure.
3. It is needed to add the approval no with date of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee
in the materials and methods part of the manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03049-y (2023)

Title: Epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment of intra-abdominal traumatic
neuromas - a narrative review
Version: 0 Date: 06 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
They have very well put forward an entity that we think we rarely see. The discussion with the
literature is excellent. I believe it will contribute to the literature.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03049-y (2023)

Title: Epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment of intra-abdominal traumatic
neuromas - a narrative review
Version: 0 Date: 01 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript presents a case series both from the authors' center and from the   literature
focused on an intraabdominal traumatic neuroma, a really rare pathology of abdominal cavity.
The article observes epidemiology of TN, most frequents clinical characteristics, risk factors,
and diagnostic and treatment approaches. It is written with good scientific English language,
divided by subheadings.
Anyway, there are some issues that are need to be clarified.
It is not clear if the statical analysis of the presented data was performed. Authors describe some
statical information, so was it obtained from the literature data only?  If the authors performed
any statical analysis, please, describe it in the manuscript.
There are two subgroups of cases - literature data and clinical data of the authors' medical center.
About the cases from the authors' medical center-   did the patients give the consent? Please note
it in the appropriate section.
What was the longest follow-up period in the asymptomatic patients? Were there any clinical
changes during the follow up?
Please, add the "Conclusions" section with several sentences with the main findings of your
article and  possible perspectives in TN diagnosis and treatment.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-03049-y (2023)

Title: Epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment of intra-abdominal traumatic
neuromas - a narrative review
Version: 0 Date: 17 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?
N/A - there are no statistics in this 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?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I read with interest the manuscript by Wang, et al. The authors
discussed regarding epidemiology, pathophysiology, mechanism, risk factors, classification,
diagnosis, and management of intra-abdominal traumatic neuroma. I have the following
comments:
1. This article looks more like a simple review. The authors should make this clearer in their
title, so readers are aware.
2. The authors did not comment if a biopsy is needed, or imaging characteristics are sufficient
for making a diagnosis.
3. Suggest making a table for imaging characteristics noted for TN.
4. It would be extremely helpful for readers if authors can make an algorithm/flow chart that
would include diagnostic and management options.
5. The authors should get their manuscript checked for grammatical errors by someone that is
proficient in English.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Comments posted for authors above. Please revise accordingly.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Please see above comments and consider revising."