JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-41 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:An unusual association of diffuse adenomyomatosis with dysplastic
adenoma in chronic calculous cholecystitis: Case report.
Version: 1Date:22 February 2010
Reviewer: Robert D Goldin
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions
This paper is now considerably improved and is acceptable for publication.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-40 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence of liver fibrosis and risk factors in a general population using
non-invasive biomarkers (FibroTest)
Version: 1Date:28 January 2010
Reviewer: Valerio Nobili
Reviewer's report:
Despite the Authors arguments the fact that liver biopsy was only performed in a
minority of discordant subjects (only 2% of patients underwent on histology
evaluation) make this study vulnerable to criticism.
After deep evaluation this Reviewer think that more biopsied patients are
necessary for upholding the Authors thesis
Minor comments
The references 18 and 26 even if quoted in the test were missing in the list
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-40 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence of liver fibrosis and risk factors in a general population using
non-invasive biomarkers (FibroTest)
Version: 1Date:22 March 2010
Reviewer: Laurent Castera
Reviewer's report:
In the present study, the authors estimated the prevalence of significant fibrosis
using biomarkers (Fibrotest, FT) as first line and transient elastography (TE) as
confirmation in 7463 subjects older than 40 seen for a free medical screening in
France as well as different screening strategies (non selective versus selective
and oriented).
Their results show that significant fibrosis could be suspected in 209 (2.8%)
including cirrhosis in 25 (0.3%) but could be confirmed (using the concordance
between FT >0.48 and TE >7.1 kPa) in only 52 patients (0.7%) (4 liver biopsies
performed).
The leading cause, as could be expected, was NAFLD and the most sensitive
selective screening strategy was the metabolic factor-oriented one.
major comments:
The authors should be congratulated for performing this pilot study in such a
large community based-population. Screening of the general population for liver
diseases is an important and challenging issue and using non invasive methods
is a very attractive strategy.
This study has however several methodological limitations (only half of the 209
patients with presumed fibrosis were reinvestigated, fibrosis was “confirmed” (on
the basis on the agreement between non invasive methods) in only 52 patients,
and finally histological characterization and confirmation was obtained in only 4
patients) that should be acknowledged and discussed in more details by the
authors.
minor comments
I would suggest adding an updated reference on the applicability of transient
elastography (Castera et al. Hepatology 2010).
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-40 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence of liver fibrosis and risk factors in a general population using
non-invasive biomarkers (FibroTest)
Version: 2Date:1 April 2010
Reviewer: Valerio Nobili
Reviewer's report:
This reviewer appreciated the Authors work. The manuscript is improved and
suitable for publication
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-39 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Role of myosin light chain kinase in intestinal epithelial barrier defects in a
rat model of bowel obstruction
Version: 1Date:24 November 2009
Reviewer: Stephan Samel
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
- Methods: (1) the authors ought to provide more details on experimental animals
(age), experimental procedures (e.g. central venous fluid substitution) and their
performance under surgery (monitoring of arterial and venous blood pressure,
mesenteric blood flow, oxygen saturation etc.). (2) Bowel obstruction is
associated with ischemia of the bowel and increased bacterial translocation (BT).
the experimental procedure of single bowel ligation may be insufficient to cause
critical bowel ischemia. histological findings close to the ligature may be
traumatic in origin. the authors ought to discuss their model in comparision to
other experimental settings(3) bacterial colonisation of the bowel ought to be
described and compared in detail.
Minor Essential Revisions
- the manuscript is to long and ought to be shorted by 25%.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-39 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Role of myosin light chain kinase in intestinal epithelial barrier defects in a
rat model of bowel obstruction
Version: 2Date:25 January 2010
Reviewer: Derek M McKay
Reviewer's report:
No additional concerns; the authors have addressed by original concerns
satisfactorily.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-38 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Excellent superiority and specificity of COBAS TaqMan HCV assay in an
early viral kinetic change during pegylated interferon-alpha 2b plus ribavirin
treatment
Version: 1Date:29 October 2008
Reviewer: Peter Ferenci
Reviewer's report:
This study compares the more sensitive TaqMan assay with the older Amplicor
assay to measure viral load in patients with hepatitis treated with PEGIFN/RBV.
The study is retrospective, so there is a potential selection bias, which may have
a major impact on the findings.
The author present their data as % decrease in viral load (text and fig.2),
conventionally one uses the log decline (should be easy to recalculate the data).
Fig 3 is hard to understand. It is mandatory not just to shown %, but the actual
number of patients. Surprisingly, 60% of Taqman neg pts. at week 12 did not an
SVR. This calls for a discussion on compliance and drug exposure. Were al
TaqMan neg. pts. realy negative or just unquantifiable? Even more unclear is
why all non SVR pts. were undetectable by the Amplicor assay.
A more useful analysis would be the time to first undetectability (see Ferenci et
al, J Hepatology 2005 – this paper describes the time dependency of SVR for the
first time) and its relation to the end of treatment response, relapse rate and SVR
Fig. 4 should have the same units for the ordinate and the abscissa – to highlight
the fact that values with the Taqman assay are higher than with the Amplicor
assay
The introduction and the methods section can be shortened at least by 50%
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-38 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Excellent superiority and specificity of COBAS TaqMan HCV assay in an
early viral kinetic change during pegylated interferon-alpha 2b plus ribavirin
treatment
Version: 2Date:2 July 2009
Reviewer: Chia-Yen L Dai
Reviewer's report:
The authors improved the manuscript following suggestions from reviewers.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-38 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Excellent superiority and specificity of COBAS TaqMan HCV assay in an
early viral kinetic change during pegylated interferon-alpha 2b plus ribavirin
treatment
Version: 2Date:7 July 2009
Reviewer: Peter Ferenci
Reviewer's report:
The authors partly incorporated my comments into the revised version.
By rereading the revised manuscript, I realized that the paper contains a major
mistake. Since samples were diluted 1:10 for the Monitor assay, the LOD is
certainly not 50 IU/ml (in fact the authors give a lower value of 3.7 log IU). Thus
the basis of the whole paper is simply wrong. The authors should give the
Taqman data for all patients who were neg by Monitor but pos by TaqMan.
Furthermore following points were not covered:
1. Surprisingly, 60% of Taqman neg pts. at week 12 did not an SVR. This calls
for a discussion on compliance and drug exposure. Were all TaqMan neg. pts.
really negative or just unquantifiable? Even more unclear is why all non SVR pts.
were undetectable by the Amplicor assay. This study compares the more
sensitive TaqMan assay with the older Amplicor (see also my comment above)
2 A more useful analysis would be the time to first undetectability (see Ferenci et
al, J Hepatology 2005 – this paper describes the time dependency of SVR for the
first time) and its relation to the end of treatment response, relapse rate and SVR
3. Fig. 1 should have the same units for the ordinate and the abscissa – to
highlight the fact that values with the Taqman assay are higher than with the
Amplicor assay.
Assessment:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described - questionable
3. Are the data sound –depend on the validity of the diluted Monitor assay
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data questionable
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated No
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
published and unpublished - incomplete
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found yes
9. Is the writing acceptable yes
Recommendation: REJECT
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-38 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Excellent superiority and specificity of COBAS TaqMan HCV assay in an
early viral kinetic change during pegylated interferon-alpha 2b plus ribavirin
treatment
Version: 3Date:27 October 2009
Reviewer: Peter Ferenci
Reviewer's report:
MS: 7084361742234292
Research article
Excellent superiority and specificity of COBAS TaqMan HCV assay in an early
viral kinetic change during pegylated interferon-alpha 2b plus ribavirin treatment
Eiichi Ogawa et al
I am still puzzled by the data. The authors have not really addressed all my
comments.
Major Compulsory Revisions
I asked for the individual data of pts. being Taqman neg but Monitor positive at
any given time point. Although mentioned in their response letter, I do not find
this data! This is a quite a substantial problem and requires an explanation. Why
is the more sensitive assay negative if the less sensitive one yields detectable
virus!
Actually the Taqman assay gives 3 different results: undetectable (=< LOD),
detectable but unquantifiable (< 15 IU /ml), and quantifiable.
According to the methods Taqman was repeated from frozen samples – how
were the samples stored. Did the authors test the stability of HCV RNA levels in
stored samples?
Assessment:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described - questionable
3. Are the data sound –depend on the validity of the diluted Monitor assay and
the definition of “negativity” by the Taqman assay
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data questionable
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated No
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
published and unpublished - yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found: yes
9. Is the writing acceptable: yes
Recommendation: REJECT: With all the uncertainties regarding assays
conditions I am not sure that the contribution of this paper to enlarge our
knowledge is substantial
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-37 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Annual pattern of peptic ulcer hospitalizations: a retrospective analysis of
hospital discharge data of the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy.
Version: 2Date:7 November 2009
Reviewer: Jin-Yong Kang
Reviewer's report:
Seasonal variation in peptic ulcer disease has interested many investigators for
many years and these studies are listed by the authors in Table 1. There is no
clear-cut consensus, although the majority of studies point to a trough in the
summer. It is therefore unsurprising that the present study again produced
equivocal findings, the two analytical methods applied by the authors on the
same dataset giving rise to somewhat different results.
As peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter infection are chronic conditions, with
their natural history going over years rather than months, it would seem intuitively
likely that any seasonality which can be demonstrated would relate to factors
which affect the severity of symptoms or presentation to medical attention, rather
than to the pathogenesis of the ulcer diathesis. It is also possible the two casues
of ulcer disease i.e. H pylori and NSAIDs, may have different seasonal patterns.
These points should be mentioned in the discussion.
With the lack of consensus despite numerous previous studies, and the lack of
clear-cut results despite the large patient numbers used in the present study, any
seasonal difference in the presentation of peptic ulcer disease is unlikely to be of
major clinical significance.
Specific comments:
Discussion
'Anedoctal evidence reports a classical biphasic pattern (Spring-Autumn) for
acute PUD, and clinical evidence supports the hypothesis of a relationship
between severe PUD, defined here in terms of the requirement for acute
management by hospitalization, and season.'
Presumably by 'anecdotal evidence' the authors mean the various studies
quoted- I think these constitute 'previous studies' rather than 'anecdotal evidence.
There is no 'clinical evidence' on this poiint at all as what evidence there is come
from analyses of databases.
'The demonstration of seasonal variation in PUD hospital admissions seems to
be of practical interest.' II do not agree. Any interest would relate more to
provision of insight into patho-genetic factors, rather than beint 'practical'
I am not a statistician and suggest an expert opinion be obtained regarding the
statistical methods used in this study. However, it seems to me that with the large
number of comparisons made, the p value used to indicate statistical significance
should not be the standard p<0.05. My recommendation of acceptance is
provisional upon a satisfactory statistical opinion, but there is no suitable option
in the list given below for this.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-37 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Annual pattern of peptic ulcer hospitalizations: a retrospective analysis of
hospital discharge data of the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy.
Version: 2Date:15 December 2009
Reviewer: Brian Smith
Reviewer's report:
Dr. Manfredini et al have submitted an impressively-powered work that will likely
be the definitive paper on seasonal varability of PUD. I commend him and his
colleagues on their work. I do have some revisions that I would like them to
address however.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1) The discussion section lacks focus and adequate organization. It needs to be
significantly condensed. Specifically, the 5th paragraph can be combined with the
first, and the 3rd and 4th can be combined and all can be tightened up. There is
a disconnect between the cited referrences and their pertinence to this data set.
2) The authors need to increase their emphasis on explanations/etiologies of
seasonal admission variables ie what patterns of NSAID use may be leading to
some of the seasonal variations in admission, etc. They have shown seasonal
variation. Now the reader would like to know the authors' thoughts as to why
there is variability and what can be done with this knowledge.
3) The conclusion section needs to be concise and not introduce any new
material/concepts/referrences. This section should be re-written to reflect a true
summarization of the material.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1) Overall English is good. The paper just needs to be polished up as far as
misspellings/incorrect words/syntax, once all corrections have been made.
Discretionary Revisions:
The study may have slightly more impact if the authors spend a few lines
discussing the overall importance of seasonally-associated causal factors of PUD
ie NSAID use, alcohol consumption during certain times of the year, seasonal or
regional variability in H. pylori infection, etc.
Finally, given the association between low socioeconomic status with H. pylori
infection, perhaps the authors should consider commenting on the overall
incidence of H. pylori in their region. As the most important etiologic factor in
PUD development, the role of H. pylori in this patient population is particularly
relevant here.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
No to all of the above. I declare that I have no competing interest.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-37 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Seasonal pattern of peptic ulcer hospitalizations: analysis of the hospital
discharge data of the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy.
Version: 3Date:16 February 2010
Reviewer: Reimar W Thomsen
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the revised paper. The authors
have been compliant with suggestions and I feel the manuscript has improved
considerably, in particular by making more clear the two different approaches of
analysizing total number of hospital admission vs. proportion of admissions.
I was asked by the editor to comment on the question of using a lower p-value
cut-off than <0.05 because of many comparisons made. In my opinion, nothing is
gained by converting the continous p value measure into a qualitative dichotomy
of 'significant' or 'non-significant', may it be <0.05 or <0.001. I would rather see
the actual numerical p values, as they are displayed by the authors, and judge for
myself, having in mind the number of associations tested and the inborn risk that
some associations may have arisen by chance.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-37 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Seasonal pattern of peptic ulcer hospitalizations: analysis of the hospital
discharge data of the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy.
Version: 3Date:23 February 2010
Reviewer: Brian Smith
Reviewer's report:
Dr. Manfredini et al. have made significant improvements to their manuscript. I
am satisfied with the improvements and feel that this paper is ready for
publication.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-36 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Moxibustion for Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review
Version: 1Date:28 January 2010
Reviewer: Alan Moss
Reviewer's report:
The authors have completed a timely, and well-reported systematic review of
moxibustion for ulcerative colitis
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. Table 1 needs a description of
a. the patient populations enrolled in these studies e.g. where they patients in
remission, or patients with active colitis
b. how was "response" defined in each study
2. A meta-analysis of the 3 studies that compared sulfasalazine to moxibustion
(Wen,
Wu, Wang) - this is clinically more meaningful than comparing moxi to any
treatment
3. A meta-analysis of studies that compared moxi & acupunture to standard
treatment
(Yang, Ma, Joos)
Minor Essential
1. A number of typos throughout the manuscript - please have proof-read
2. The search did not include abstracts from international meetings? DDW,
UEGW
3. The criticisms of "papers from China" should be corrected to "papers on
Chinese medicine" or "papers on complimentary medicine" in general - the study
weaknesses discussed are not unique to one country.
4. A more detailed decription of moxibustion for the uninformed reader
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-36 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Moxibustion for Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review
Version: 1Date:3 February 2010
Reviewer: Peter Laszlo Lakatos
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting review on the role of complementary and alternative
medicine use, specifically moxibustion in ulcerative colitis. The problem with the
review as already discussed by the authors is that the quality of the trials was
very low, thus no valid metaanalysis could have been done. The conclusion of
the authors that the trials were of low quality and therefore inconclusive,
therefore more rigorous studies seem warranted is appropriate. The potential
impact of the paper is very low, in contrast it highlights the problems with CAM
based clinical trials and hopefully can contribute to the better design of future
CAM trials.
Major compulsory revisions;
1. The methods are properly used, however from the abstract it seems that
moxibustion is an effective treatment in UC. This part of the abstract should be
rewritten highlighting that most of trials were very low quality, and any
metaanalysis is highly biased.
2. The study of Fan et al utilized a completely different `conventional` treatment
strategy (that includes treatment option without proven efficacy) and should be
excluded from the final analysis.
3. Since all studies were conducted in Asia, all conclusions should be limited to
Asian populations because of the lack of efficacy in other populations.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-36 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Moxibustion for Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review
Version: 3Date:1 March 2010
Reviewer: Alan Moss
Reviewer's report:
As requested on the original review, please describe;
1. the disease activity of the patients in each study in Table 1 - where they in
remission, or being treated for active disease? If not described, please report this
2. the definition of response for each study in Table 1 - was is based on
physician's assessment, a symptom score e.g. SCAI, endoscopy. If not
described, please report this in the table.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-36 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Moxibustion for Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review
Version: 3Date:1 March 2010
Reviewer: Peter Laszlo Lakatos
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript is much improved. There are still some concerns that
need revision. The reviewer would like to ask the authors to carry out a Funnel
plot and/or Egger's regression test to investigate the publication bias.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
none
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-35 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Bax Inhibitor-1 down-regulation in the progression of chronic liver diseases
Version: 2Date:26 January 2010
Reviewer: Yusuf Yilmaz
Reviewer's report:
Overview
In an effort to study the implications of hepatocyte apoptosis in chronic liver
diseases, the authors examined Bax and BI-1 mRNA and protein expressions in
liver tissues from 39 patients with chronic hepatitis (CH) (31 HCV-related and 8
HBV-related); 7 with cirrhosis (6 HCV-related and 1 HBV-related); 13 with
hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (7 in viral cirrhosis [6 HCV- and 1 HBV-related],
6 in non-viral cirrhosis); and 3 controls. Bax and BI-1 mRNAs were quantified by
real-time PCR; in addition, BI-1 protein expression was determined by Western
blot. The authors observed that high BI-1 mRNAs levels observed in early liver
disease may protect virus-infected cells against apoptosis, while their
progressive downregulation may facilitate hepatocellular carcinogenesis. HCV
genotype seems to have a relevant role in Bax transcript expression.
Major Compulsory Revisions
- The study was mainly focused on virus-related chronic liver disease. Therefore
the inclusion of 6 patients with non-viral cirrhosis is questionable here and may
complicate data analysis and interpretation. This is especially true inasmuch as
the authors did not include patients with NAFLD in this study. Therefore, data on
patients with non-viral cirrhosis should be deleted and the paper re-arranged
accordingly.
- The inclusion of only three controls is another problematic issue. Although the
main comparisons were between liver disease with different severities, this is a
caveat that needs to be highlighted. The addition of more controls is desirable.
- Another interesting research direction is to study Bax and BI-1 mRNAs in the
spectrum of NAFLD. This is a caveat of this study that should be highlighted. The
authors should briefly introduce this concept and refer to the paper by Beatrice
Bailly-Maitre d coworkers (Hepatic Bax-inhibitor (BI)-1 inhibits IRE1# and
protects from obesity-associated insulin resistance and glucose intolerance. J.
Biol. Chem. jbc.M109.056648) that may represent an important starting point for
the study of BI-1 in NAFLD.
Minor Essential Revisions
- Was normality of the data checked?
- "A 2P value of < 0.05 was required for significance" should be changed in
"Two-tailed P values < 0.05 were deemed to be significant".
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-35 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Bax Inhibitor-1 down-regulation in the progression of chronic liver diseases
Version: 2Date:2 February 2010
Reviewer: giorgio soardo
Reviewer's report:
The submitted paper examines the expression levels of Bax and BI-1 (pro and
anti-apoptotic mediators) at the level of mRNA (via Real time PCR) and protein
(via Western blot analysis), in tissues samples from patients with chronic
hepatitis, cirrhosis and HCC.
Major comments
The paper provides interesting observations about the role of the above
mediators in the different stages of liver disease. In particular the
down-regulation of BI-1 with liver damage progression offers new understanding
in the process of hepatocarcinogenesis.
The study is well designed and the methods are appropriated and well described.
The results section is clear as is the Discussion that could, however, be
shortened.
Minor points
1. The hypothesis about the inter-relationship between HCV proteins and the
intracellular pathways, reported in Fig. n 5, looks nice but is not supported by the
data presented. I suggest it to be deleted.
2. Figure 1, that does not report significant differences, should be transformed in
a summarizing Table.
3. Since ALT levels are closely related to the progression and prognosis of
chronic liver damage, has a correlation between transaminases, Bax and BI-1
levels be looked for?
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-35 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Bax Inhibitor-1 down-regulation in the progression of chronic liver diseases
Version: 3Date:4 March 2010
Reviewer: Yusuf Yilmaz
Reviewer's report:
The authors have essentially responded to the criticisms raised in my previous
report.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-35 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Bax Inhibitor-1 down-regulation in the progression of chronic liver diseases
Version: 3Date:8 March 2010
Reviewer: Thomas Bock
Reviewer's report:
The authors satisfactorily integrated my comments and criticisms.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-33 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Efficacy of Capillary Pattern Type IIIA/IIIB by Magnifying Narrow Band
Imaging for Estimating Depth of Invasion of Early Colorectal Neoplasms
Version: 2Date:16 November 2009
Reviewer: Jason Rogart
Reviewer's report:
I commend the authors on another well-executed study examining the use of NBI
in colorectal neoplasms. I believe the following suggested revisions (see below)
will further strengthen the manuscript.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. In the Methods section, please clarify what determined whether a patient
underwent endoscopic resection or surgery. Were all lesions potentially
endoscopically resectable?
2. The authors should consider stating more explicitly how magnifying NBI would
change their clinical practice (i.e. management of the patient) based on the
results of their current study. For example, if a lesion is diagnosed endoscopically
as capillary type IIIA, do the authors recommend proceeding directly to
endoscopic polypectomy / endoscopic mucosal resection (accepting that 5% will
have deep submucosal invasion)? Likewise, what do the authors suggest, if a
lesion is diagnosed endoscopically as capillary type IIIA? Should they all go to
surgery or undergo chromoendoscopy for pit pattern analysis and EUS
miniprobe?
3. In the Methods section, please clarify whether capillary pattern determination
was made real-time (during endoscopy), or whether it was done after the
procedure from still photos
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. In the abstract, the authors state that there are no studies regarding
effectiveness of magnifying NBI for determining depth of invasion in early
colorectal neoplasms, however reference #19 appears to be such a study. The
authors should consider changing “no studies” to “few studies.
2. Last sentence of introduction: the authors should consider softening the tone
of this sentence by, for example, changing “is crucial” to “may be important” as
the standard of care countries such as the U.S. for most colorectal carcinomas is
surgery.
3. In the Methods section (capillary pattern classification), please re-word “a
regular unarranged pattern,” as “regular” and “unarranged” seem to be
contradictory terms.
4. In the Discussion section, 1st paragraph, please change “sensibility” to
“sensitivity.”
5. Discussion, fourth paragraph: Please clarify the sentence “Therefore, it is
suggested that CP type IIIA were adaptation lesions associated with the
endoscopic treatment”--- it is difficult to understand what the author are trying to
say. What are adaptation lesions?
6. The authors should consider softening the tone of the first sentence of the
Discussion’s last paragraph by changing, for example, “…magnifying NBI is an
effective…” to “… magnifying NBI may be an effective…”
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-33 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Efficacy of Capillary Pattern Type IIIA/IIIB by Magnifying Narrow Band
Imaging for Estimating Depth of Invasion of Early Colorectal Neoplasms
Version: 2Date:14 December 2009
Reviewer: Ajay Bansal
Reviewer's report:
Re: 'Efficacy of Capillary Pattern Type IIIA/IIIB by Magnifying Narrow Band
Imaging for Estimating Depth of Invasion of Early Colorectal Neoplasms '
Response: This is an interesting study that applies NBI capillary patterns to
predict the depth of invasion. The rationale is strong but there are several
concerns.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1) The morphological appearance of colonic lesions plays an important role in
predicting the depth of invasion which then helps the endoscopist to decide the
therapeutic intervention. In methods, the authors suggest that each lesion was
classified using the Paris classification. The authors need to perform bivariate
analysis using both the NBI patterns and the Paris classification to determine the
independent effect of type IIIB patterns on predicting the depth of invasion.
2) Type IIIB pattern is described as avascular or loose microcapiilary vessels. To
me that almost suggests the appearance of an ulcer on the surface of these
lesions. Does type IIIA refers to presence of ulceration? It is known that surface
ulceration on colonic lesions portends higher stage.
3) It is not clear if the NBI patterns were predicted during real time endoscopy or
post priori from the collected images.
4) For observer variability studies, was any standardization done prior to the
image evaluation. What was the time difference between the first and the second
read?
5) The mean length was 17 mm (5-80 mm). The longer lengths will allow more
surface area to be visualized, so how did the authors select which images to
include.
6) A total of 130 colorectal lesions were identified. Why was the IOV performed
only on 115 lesions? Why were 15 lesions excluded?
7) The investigators have provided pairwise kappa values that are known to
make the agreement look better than it is. The authors should redo the kappa
analysis without classifying HI as control and provide an overall interobserver
and intraobserver kappa values for the three evaluators as a group.
Minor Essential Revisions
1) Discussion , 2nd page, 2nd to last paragraph. Replace “general” endoscopists
with less experienced.
2) Methods: The statement “CP type III lesions with an obvious appearance of
advanced cancer” needs to be further clarified to provide some objective
parameters
3) Results: The diagnostic accuracy usually refers to a combination of sensitivity
and specificity. If the authors are discussing NPV and PPV, mention it as such.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-33 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Efficacy of Capillary Pattern Type IIIA/IIIB by Magnifying Narrow Band
Imaging for Estimating Depth of Invasion of Early Colorectal Neoplasms
Version: 3Date:4 February 2010
Reviewer: Ajay Bansal
Reviewer's report:
Rewrite these sentences under materials and methods.
1) Next, lesions were observed in NBI and the each CP were
evaluated by magnifying NBI view in real time.
- remove "the" before each
Regarding the large lesions, fundamentally
we selected the image of the most clinically important part (e.g. large nodule,
depression
and reddened area) as a “best magnifying NBI image and diagnosed it.
-For larger lesions, the highest quality NBI image from the macroscopically worst
area (e.g. large nodule, depression and reddened area) was evaluated.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-33 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Efficacy of Capillary Pattern Type IIIA/IIIB by Magnifying Narrow Band
Imaging for Estimating Depth of Invasion of Early Colorectal Neoplasms
Version: 3Date:14 February 2010
Reviewer: Jason Rogart
Reviewer's report:
I thank the authors for the effort taken to revise their manuscript. I believe the
manuscript as a result is strengthened, and believe that it is suitable or
publication in is current form provided the following minor clarifications be made:
1. In the mehods section, please describe the magnification capability of the
CF-H260ZI scope, as this is not widely available in the United States.
2. In the legend of Figure 2, please indicate the magnification at which the
photographs were taken.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-32 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease in two districts of Sri Lanka: a
hospital based survey
Version: 1Date:22 September 2009
Reviewer: Ole Høie
Reviewer's report:
The article describes the epidemiology and clinical characteristics of
inflammatory bowel disease in two well-defined districts in Colombo, Sri Lanka.
The authors find a low prevalence compared to western populations but similar to
some other Asian countries. The study is hospital-based. This problem has been
properly discussed in the paper which is well written. The table and figures are
informative and easy to understand. New epidemiologic data from this region of
the world is of substantial interest. Some points have to be commented upon.
Major
1. The main end-point of the study is the prevalence of the diseases. Additionally,
to calculate the incidence, it would be of interest to know how many of the 295
cases were diagnosed as new cases during the one year study inclusion period.
2. How was the disease activity divided into mild, moderate and severe? Which
scoring system did you use? Did you include endoscsopy and/or laboratory
tests?
3. Was the assessment of disease activity performed at the time of inclusion in
the study? If so, I suggest you calculate the median duration of the disease from
the time of diagnosis to the time of inclusion. This is important because disease
activity may have declined during the course.
Minor
4. How many patients did not have a full colonoscopy at the initial assessment?
Radiology may underestimate disease extent compared with endoscopy.
5. The type of hospital mentioned in the text seems somewhat confusing. District
Hospitals, Peripheral Units, Teaching hospitals and Base Hospitals are
mentioned. I would suggest you could simplify this paragraph according to Figure
1 which I find very informative (14 non-specialist hospitals refer all their
suspected IBD cases to one of the ten specialist hospitals for further diagnosis,
treatment and follow-up)
Discretionary
6. Reference 8 and 9 : The year of publication should be inserted after the name
of the journal (8) or is missing (9)
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-32 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease in two districts of Sri Lanka: a
hospital based survey
Version: 2Date:14 January 2010
Reviewer: JOHN Triantafillidis
Reviewer's report:
The authors revised the paper according to my suggestions
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-32 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease in two districts of Sri Lanka: a
hospital based survey
Version: 2Date:18 January 2010
Reviewer: Ole Høie
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor
I find the revision made by the authors quite acceptable. However, concerning
disease activity (page 5 para 2 line 9)it looks to me if the disease activity is
cathegorized according to the opinion of the investigators. Even if the division of
disease activity is based on endoscopic and histologic findings, no validated
scoring system (like e.g. the SCCAI or Harvwy-Bradshaw) seems to have been
used. If so, I suggest this to be stated in the paper.
With best regards
Ole Høie
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-29 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Chronic Presentation of Boerhaave's Syndrome
Version: 1Date:17 August 2009
Reviewer: Andrew Hill
Reviewer's report:
There are a number of typos that need attention. Otherwise this is an interesting
addition to the literature.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-29 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Chronic Presentation of Boerhaave's Syndrome
Version: 1Date:25 August 2009
Reviewer: Owen Korn
Reviewer's report:
The paper is interesting for the rarity of this type of clinical presentation.
However the authors in the discussion refer particularly to acute Boerhaave,
which is not the subject of the case report. In my opinion they should include:
a) A commentary and explanation concerning the evolution of this particular case
b) To review the literature looking for similar cases, and trying to establish some
common features in these chronic patients with a Boerhaave Syndrome
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-29 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Chronic Presentation of Boerhaave's Syndrome
Version: 1Date:11 September 2009
Reviewer: John Plukker
Reviewer's report:
Most patients with a Boerhaave syndrome presents with acute lower chest pain
with epigastric tenderness shortly after excessive vomiting followed by
mediastinal or subcutaneous emphysema, the so-called Meckler’s triad.
Sometimes, usually when the rupture is confined to the mediastinum the
symptoms may be mild and the patient not that sick with normal vital signs and
absence of septic signs, till progression of symptoms after some period.
History and radiographic examination i.e plain chest radiographs showing
mediastinal or free air with widened mediastinum are the cornerstone of the early
diagnosis for this syndrome. In the more early cases water soluble contrast
radiographic examination still is the gold standard. This can also be performed
with contrast CT for localisation. Endoscopic localisation may cause further
rupturing and is only recommended in combination with stenting. In absence of
signs or suspicious very small tears a conservative procedure with antibiotics
could be performed. Otherwise a VATS procedure with drainge and cleaning of
mediastinal debris eventually in combination with stenting is to be prefere above
esophageal resection with cervical esophagostomy.
We have described early results of conservative methods in Selective approach
in the treatment of esophageal perforations.
Amir AI et al. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2004 May;39(5):418-22. As this report was
one of the first recommended a conservative approach with minimal morbidity
and mortality it is worthy to be mentioned.
The case report is well-written and I recommend publication with some minor
changes, as can be found above.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-28 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Differential detection of nuclear envelope autoantibodies in primary biliary
cirrhosis using routine and alternative methods
Version: 1Date:7 January 2010
Reviewer: Alessandro Granito
Reviewer's report:
Major points
- The study is clear presented and results are adequately discussed. The new
methodology presented by the authors seem to offer a gain of sensitivity of
Rim-like ANA pattern. I think it should be included a number of healthy and
pathological controls to verify the specificity of autoantibodies searched by the
new method.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'