JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-7 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:The Potential Therapeutic Effect of Melatonin in Gastro-esophageal Reflux
Disease
Version: 5Date:3 November 2009
Reviewer: Debasish Bandyopadhyay
Reviewer's report:
Respected Editor-In-Chief,
Many thanks for sending me the paper to re-examine.
I have thoroughly examined the REVISED MANUSCRIPT.
The authors have answered to most of the queries put forward this and the other
reviewer.
THEREFORE,THE PAPER CAN NOW BE ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION IN
BMC GASTROENTEROLOGY.
Many thanks for giving me the opportunity to serve your journal as a reviewer.
Very best regards.
Sincerely Yours
DEBASISH BANDYOPADHYAY
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-10-7 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:The Potential Therapeutic Effect of Melatonin in Gastro-esophageal Reflux
Disease
Version: 6Date:8 December 2009
Reviewer: Stanis&#322;aw Konturek
Reviewer's report:
The revised paper is much improved in comparison with original manuscript as
the gastric acid and serum gastrin data have been corporated. The measurement
of gastrin by RIA requires more details regarding the reproducibility and accuracy
of the gastrin assay as well as the gastrin antibodies used. Originally, I also
requested to insert the data with histological evaluation of the esophageal
mucosa in patients with GERD before and after treatment with melatonin, PPI or
their combination, but now I would drop out this request. I foud numerous English
errors in the text which have to be taken care before the publication of the paper.
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 interest below.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-8 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Truncating mutations in the Wilson disease gene ATP7B are associated
with very low serum ceruloplasmin oxidase activity and an early onset of Wilson
disease
Version: 1Date:17 November 2009
Reviewer: eapen eapen
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer's report
-----------------
This article reads well and adds to the information correlating Wilson’s disease
(WD) genotype with phenotype. I have the following suggestions:
- Major Compulsory Revisions: None
- Minor Essential Revisions: None
- Discretionary Revisions
1. Splice site mutations have been categorised as severe mutations in this study,
the authors may wish to elaborate why this was done (splice site mutations are
known to cause mild mutations and mild phenotypic disease).
The serum ceruloplasmin level and activity and age of onset of disease in the
patient(s) with splice site mutation maybe mentioned separately.
2. Was the serum ceruloplasmin assay done at the time of first presentation with
WD ?
3. Were all WD patients symptomatic ?
4. If data is available, correlation between genotype and serum free copper levels
maybe looked at.
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-10-8 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Truncating mutations in the Wilson disease gene ATP7B are associated
with very low serum ceruloplasmin oxidase activity and an early onset of Wilson
disease
Version: 1Date:27 November 2009
Reviewer: Maria Tzetis
Reviewer's report:
The authors have genotyped a group of 59 WD patients well characterized
clinically and biochemically and they correlate the oxidase activity of serum
ceruloplasmin as an accurate indicator of severe (truncating , frameshift
mutations). The article is well written and the concept is of interest to readers.
Minor essential revisions
The authors should report all mutations according to the new nomenclature. For
instance IVS4-1g>a. Generally they should recheck the portion of the manuscript
that mutation names are mentioned.
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-10-4 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Novel application of low pH-dependent fluorescent dyes to examine colitis
Version: 1Date:5 October 2009
Reviewer: Guida Maria Portela-Gomes
Reviewer's report:
Ishiguro et al report in their study that the topical application of a low
pH-dependent fluorescent dye [4-nitro-7-piperazino-2,1,3-benzoxadiazole
(NBD-PZ)] to the colonic mucosa of mice, models of both acute and chronic
colitis, reveals the destruction of crypts and infiltration of inflammatory cells.
The title and abstract are correct, the results are sound and the discussion is well
balanced.
The study is interesting as it may provide a novel technique for evaluation of
colitis, however, as the authors carefully mention in their conclusion, it needs
clinical validation.
Essential Revision:
My only comment is that the Methods (which are appropriate) are not well
described - parts that are written in Results, regarding the methods that have
been used, should be written in Material and Methods, not in Results. For
example, the duration of incubation and the NBD-PZ concentration are written in
p.10 (Results) and should be in p.7 (Material and Methods). Also the method
used to sacrifice the mice and the duration of the paraformaldehyde fixation
should be mentioned. The Material and Methods and Results should be carefully
revised in this respect.
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-10-4 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Novel application of low pH-dependent fluorescent dyes to examine colitis
Version: 1Date:6 October 2009
Reviewer: Carmen Waengler
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions to be made:
1.
The authors compare their fluorescent dye NMD-PZ to others, namely
LysoSensor Green DND-153 and DND-189 but do not mention their suitability for
the detection of colitis in the introduction. To complete the background in the
introduction, these dyes should be mentioned as the authors themselves
investigated them with regard to low pH applications in “Ishiguro K, Ando T, Goto
H: Novel application of 4-nitro-7-(1-piperazinyl)-2,1,3-benzoxadiazole to visualize
lysosomes in live cells. Biotechniques 2008, 45 (4):465, 467-468”.
2.
In Figure 7 are shown the results from a mutagenicity test of NBD-PZ. It can be
seen that a concentration of up to 2.5 µg/ml NBD-PZ results in no mutation.
However, a concentration of 10 µg/ml exhibits a low but apparent mutagenicity
and the authors themselves state that a “careful monitoring should be performed
at a clinical trial of NBD-PZ application to avoid any harmful events” in their
discussion. Therefore, the authors should state in their conclusion that not only
the clinical validity of the results remains to be determined but also the
harmlessness of the compound.
3.
“We applied NBD-PZ to the mucosa of TNBS-induced colitis and found that there
was a
disappearance of the ring-shaped fluorescent stains that were observed in the
normal
colon (Fig. 2A-D).”
Change to: … observed in the normal colon (Fig. 1A-D).
4.
Please make clear the table legends that every circle stands for one experiment
performed.
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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-4 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Novel application of low pH-dependent fluorescent dyes to examine colitis
Version: 4Date:17 December 2009
Reviewer: Guida Maria Portela-Gomes
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript addresses my suggestions. The manuscript is now
suitable for publication in BMC Gastroenterology.
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-10-5 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Differences in Rebleeding Behavior after Endoscopic Band Ligation: A
Retrospective Analysis
Version: 1Date:7 June 2009
Reviewer: alexander L gerbes
Reviewer's report:
This ms. deals with bleeding from ligation ulcers and early variceal rebleeding
after ligation,respectively and provides informations with potentially great clinical
impact.
However,important informations are missing and terminology used needs to be
clarified and/or changed.
Major points:
1)A number of pts. had ligation for primary prophylaxis.In these pts it is not
correct to report REbleeding. This needs to be corrected in the title,abstract etc.
Furthermore,authors should state,how many ligation sessions were analyzed for
primary and for secondary prevention,respectively.
2)Information is required on details of the treatment schedule (eg use of
PPI,cf.Shaheen NJ,Hepatology 2005),duration of hospital stay,duration of
follow-up,endoscopy intervals to determine drop-off of ligation bands.
3)Time interval between ligation and drop-off of bands was recorded but is not
presented adequately - this could be an interesting piece of information.
Minor points:
1)Terminology should be clarified and/or corrected:
I guess bleeding events were classified as due to ligation ulcers or as variceal
(re)bleeding due to other causes. This should be phrased as simple as possible
and with consistent wording throughout the ms and tables.
Bleeding presumably was not from recurrent varices ,but rather variceal
rebleeding.
When discussing their findings compared to other publications the authors should
be aware that some of these studies investigated only primary or secondary
prophylaxis,respectively and that the follow-up periods (by the length of which the
(re)bleeding frequency should be influenced) may have been quite different from
the present study.
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-10-5 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Differences in Rebleeding Behavior after Endoscopic Band Ligation: A
Retrospective Analysis
Version: 1Date:21 June 2009
Reviewer: Jiannis Vlachogiannakos
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the authors retrospectively analyzed the possible differences in
rebleeding behavior after endoscopic band ligation (EBL).
It was quite difficult to follow this study as it is not clear to me what actually the
authors wanted to investigate. They have collected different cohorts of patients
(before bleeding, at bleeding, after bleeding) and it seems they are planning to
define the incidence and severity of complications after EBL. However, in the
abstract there is no aim of the study. In the background (Page 4, last paragraph),
the aim is converted to a conclusion. Finally, in the discussion (Page 10, 2nd
paragraph), they present the aim of the study as the proposal of an algorithm for
the surveillance of patients after EBL. This algorithm was never proposed in the
results or elsewhere in the manuscript.
The authors describe as common practice the hospitalization of the patients after
EBL until drop-off of all ligation bands, proven by endoscopy. This is not true.
EBL is regularly performed on an out-patient basis, in cases of primary or
secondary prevention. After EBL, the patients remain in the hospital for 2-3 hours
under observation and then, they leave. EBL is a rather safe procedure with low
incidence of complications. Therefore, hospitalization of all patients will
enormously increase the cost with a minimal benefit in the management of
complications.
The authors need to redefine precisely the aims of their study, to describe the
methods of data collection i.e. the follow-up period, the surveillance schedule of
endoscopies, to provide clear data and to discuss their results and make
suggestions taking into consideration the currently accepted clinical practice.
Finally, the manuscript must be shortened.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-5 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Differences in Bleeding Behavior after Endoscopic Band Ligation: A
Retrospective Analysis
Version: 2Date:5 September 2009
Reviewer: Justin Cheung
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1) The reply by the authors for point 1 is not correct. Although the aim is to
evaluate bleeding risk associated with EBL procedures, it is not the “best way” to
analyze the data according to EBL procedures if patients can be included more
than once into the analysis. The best way would be for a single patient to be
entered after a single EBL procedure, and then excluded from re-entry into the
analysis if they undergo another EBL procedure. For example if you included a
patient with Child Pugh A multiple times, than one would think that rebleeding
results would be less than if you included a CP C patient multiple times.
If the authors can not exclude repeated patients from analysis, then they should
comment it as a limitation of the paper.
The paper should also comment on the major potential limitations in the study in
the discussion.
2) the AIM of the study (to evaluate the circumstances under which
hospitalization after EBL can be shortened) is not clear nor consistent with the
methodology of the study. The authors should indicate what the Primary
Outcome they are assessing in the AIMS of the study (ie mortality or bleeding
after after EBL). Additionally, if they are evaluating “circumstances” related to a
Primary Outcome, then many factors should be taken into account in the analysis
(ie do factors such as age, CP score, MELD, grade of varices, elective vs urgent
EBL). I don’t think they can say they evaluated “circumstances” since many
important factors were not analyzed/correlated with the outcome of interest
(Which usually requires a Regression Analysis). Did the authors intend to
compare the outcome of “Bleeding” among elective vs acute variceal bleeding?
3) Again I would be cautious about using the term “should” in the conclusion
based on a retrospective study. This is especially true since there many factors
potentially associated with bleeding risk were not evaluated. For example should
all acute variceal bleeds be really kept 11 days? What about those who had large
varices vs small varices, what about CP A vs CP B patients, what about those
with active bleeding at endoscopy vs no active bleeding, what about MELD score
status, what about cause of liver disease such as ongoing alcohol use? What
about those with a history or recurrent bleed vs no previous bleeding history?
Since there are so many unanswered important questions…a less definitive
statement should be used in the conclusion
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-10-5 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Differences in Bleeding Behavior after Endoscopic Band Ligation: A
Retrospective Analysis
Version: 2Date:10 September 2009
Reviewer: alexander L gerbes
Reviewer's report:
The ms has greatly improved and the authors have reponded to almost all
concerns.
A terminology issue in my opinion still needs attention:
with a maximum interval of 17 days to rebleeding I still feel that the term
"bleeding from reciurrent varices" is inappropriate and should be "rebleeding
other than from ligation site".
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-10-5 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Differences in Bleeding Behavior after Endoscopic Band Ligation: A
Retrospective Analysis
Version: 2Date:16 September 2009
Reviewer: Jiannis Vlachogiannakos
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has been substantially improved and i don't think it needs further
revisions or corrections.
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-10-5 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Differences in Bleeding Behavior after Endoscopic Band Ligation: A
Retrospective Analysis
Version: 3Date:1 December 2009
Reviewer: Justin Cheung
Reviewer's report:
minor revision
1) in the Abstract, consider including some data/stats in the results section to
support the suggestion to hospitalize patients with acute variceal bleeding for 11
days.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-3 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Angiotensin II receptor expression and relation to Helicobacter
pylori-infection in stomach of the Mongolian gerbil
Version: 2Date:24 July 2009
Reviewer: Hiroto Miwa
Reviewer's report:
The authors described expression of angiotensin II receptors in the stomach was
described in this manuscript. They reported different expression of these
receptors according to SS1 and TN2GF4 H.pylori strain. They found levels of
Angiotensin II receptors expression correlates to PMN cells, yet
pathophysiological roles of this finding is unfortunately unclrear because their
study is basically observational.
1) Do only the PMN cells in the gastric wall express AT1R? Was the level of
expression of AT1R on PMNs different between PMNs in H.pylori infected gastric
mucosa and those in peripheral circulating blood? In other words, does AT1R in
PMNs in gastric epithelium have any specific physiological roles or just an
epi-phenomenon by infiltration of PMNs?
2) The discussion is tedious and too long.
3) P17, third sentence, “ Another finfdings…….” Such explanation of TN2GF4
bacteria possessing less AT1R is apparently overstated. The speculation “Taken
together…..” (p16, line 20) does not make sense to me either.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-3 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Angiotensin II receptor expression and relation to Helicobacter
pylori-infection in stomach of the Mongolian gerbil
Version: 2Date:5 August 2009
Reviewer: Tetsuya Tsukamoto
Reviewer's report:
The reviewer thinks that the authors have corrected the manuscript according the
comments, although the following flaws still remain.
1. Put the real figure number to each figure.
2. For Figure 5 (Figure 20?), please explain the circle and triangle in the figure
legend.
3. There are many typographical errors, which should be corrected.
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-10-3 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Angiotensin II receptor expression and relation to Helicobacter
pylori-infection in stomach of the Mongolian gerbil
Version: 2Date:11 August 2009
Reviewer: Andre Bleich
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has improved considerably, especially as specificity of the
antibodies was proven and double staining was performed, although some
aspects mentioned previously by the reviewers were not taken into account.
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-10-3 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Angiotensin II receptor expression and relation to Helicobacter
pylori-infection in the stomach of the Mongolian gerbil
Version: 9Date:2 December 2009
Reviewer: Hiroto Miwa
Reviewer's report:
Even after the revision, reliability of data of the study is lilmited because this is
basically observational and descriptive, which requiring validation and
reconfirmation of following researches. However, as they clearly showed that
these receptors expression go with inflammation of H.pylori, this study may serve
as a stepping stone for the future study regarding this topic.
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-10-30 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma in Type 2 Progressive Familial Intrahepatic
Cholestasis
Version: 1Date:23 December 2009
Reviewer: Victor Ling
Reviewer's report:
Overall Comment:
This case report is noteworthy as it is the first to show a possible association of
PFIC-2 and pancreatic cancer. This is novel since PFIC-2 is normally associated
with a greatly increased risk for liver cancer. It considers the possibility that the
observed pancreatic cancer results from mere coincidence(family history, and
unlikelihood of bile acid getting to the pancreas). It speculates also on an
interesting new possibility that BSEP may act as a tumor suppresor along with
some erudite embryology.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1) Figure legends and labeling of figures need to be significantly more
comprehensive. Current explanations are far too sketchy and labeling in the
figures is next to none. Major histological features described in the manuscript
should be labeled. Also, rulers should be added in the figures.
2) Page numbering is missing in the manuscript.
3) Beginning in the fifth paragraph in Discussion, the authors should clarify the
meaning of the statement “Exposure to toxic bile acids may offer another
explanation for development of pancreatic adenocarcinoma in this patient”. Bile
acids are all toxic at some level. The so called "toxic bile acids" usually refer to
lithocholic acid, deoxycholic acid and some hydrophobic bile acids. Are the
authors implicating these bile acids as having some more specific role in
pancreatic cancer? I am not aware of any reports suggesting such "toxic" bile
acids are increased in PFIC2 patients. Perhaps the authors mean the
accumulated bile acids are toxic?
Discretionary Revisions:
1) From a clinical perspective, it would be of value to estimate how many people
are currently living with BSEP disease and potentially at risk for pancreatic
cancer. Having that number would make it easier to assess the risk.
2) If pancreatic tissues (normal and malignant)from this patient were available, it
would be of interest to determine if BSEP is expressed and if further mutations
have occurred.
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. Victor Ling
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-30 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma in Type 2 Progressive Familial Intrahepatic
Cholestasis
Version: 1Date:2 January 2010
Reviewer: Verena Keitel
Reviewer's report:
This case report presents for the first time the occurrence of an adenocarcinoma
of the pancreas in a patient with ABCB11(BSEP)-disease. It is well established
that severe mutations in the ABCB11 gene leading to PFIC-2 disease are
associated with an increased risk for the development of HCC and also
cholangiocarcinoma. Whether PFIC2 patients carry an elevated risk for the
development of other malignancies such as pancreatic cancer is unknown. The
authors of the manuscript suggest a causal relationship between
ABCB11-deficiency and the development of a pancreatic malignancy in their
patient, however, the authors also discuss whether this finding is due to mere
coincidence of both conditions.
Further studies will be necessary to clarify whether ABCB11 mutations may
predispose to the development of adenocarcinoma of the pancreas but are
beyond the scope and intention of this presented case report.
The article is well written and I have only a few minor comments:
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. p.3: It would be helpful to include the amino acid exchanges resulting from the
mutations T1238G (Leu413Trp) and C3724A (Gly1242Ile).
2. If the patient had a liver biopsy it would be interesting to know whether BSEP
staining was absent or reduced. The respective figure should be included if
possible.
3. Serum bile acid levels and if possible serum bile acid composition should be
included in the case presentation. As stated by the authors elevated
concentrations of bile acids and maybe altered composition of the bile acid pool
may represent one possible mechanism for tumor development in patients with
BSEP deficiency.
4. p.5: It would be helpful to include the normal range for CEA and CA19-9 in
parenthesis.
5. p.9: The reference 17 should be placed in front of the full stop.
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-10-2 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:The Clinical Presentations Of Ectopic Biliary Drainage To Duodenal Bulbus
And Stomach: Complicated Peptic Ulcer Formation And Recurrent Cholangitis
Attacks
Version: 2Date:9 March 2009
Reviewer: Everson Artifon
Reviewer's report:
This is an article with limited interest to the Journal ,but a suitable for ERCP
readers.The high frequency of "ectopic biliary fistula" cited in the study does not
make sense. Personaly , we have around 4000 ERCPs and until now I have
never seen ectopic biliary fistulas."ECTOPIC BILIARY OPENINGS" should be
changed to "biliary fistula" because the fistula does not need to be classified by
topic or ectopic. The authors should explain why " recurrent attack of cholangitis
determine biliary fistula. The cases should come in a demoghraphic table
facilitating to the readers.
The correct is dilation and not dilatation,then many others words should be
corrected in the text. The text is not too good: some sentences does not make
sense and a native person should take a look in the manuscript.The title is
confusing and too long
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-2 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:The Clinical Presentations Of Ectopic Biliary Drainage To Duodenal Bulbus
And Stomach: Complicated Peptic Ulcer Formation And Recurrent Cholangitis
Attacks
Version: 2Date:19 June 2009
Reviewer: omar shah
Reviewer's report:
The authors present a series of 10 cases of etopic biliary drainage.Indeed it is a
rare phenomenon, and in day to day clinical practice, one must be aware of such
an entity. Although a good attempt for describing various points of concern, the
paper lacks the flow, systematic description and english language .This study
needs Major Compulsory Revisions and I would suggest the following:
A systematic description of various features is needed. The reader finds
scattered information and lack of direction in the study. It would be interesting if
the text is divided into headings and subheadings.
Introduction: It is far too long. After giving background, focus should be on what
you are presenting in this study.
Methods: Clearly define the inclusion & exclusion criteria of the study.It would be
worthwhile if this study_includes_description on the basis of Kanematu’s
classification.
No need to mention the make up of endoscope.
Results: Good, detailed, self explainatory tables would certainly reduce the
length of the text and readers would love to read it, as human mind is averse to
lengthy descriptions.There seems to be a contradictory statement in result
section.“All the patients except one were symptomatic” better replace this with
correct statement.
Treatment: A flow chart will improve the outlook of this study.
Followup: Details are very vital as such patients have recurrent symptoms.
Discussion: It is far too long and mandering.After the definition and incidences, a
comparative analysis with other studies is needed.A part of etiology, clinical
features, presentation and related factors for causing these features need to be
described. A para regarding Kanematu’s classification; its benefits both the
diagnostic and therapeutic may be added. Diagnostic and treatment modalities
should be described and comparative analysis with other studies may be made.
A final message may be put across.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-10-2 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:The Clinical Presentations Of Ectopic Biliary Drainage with a Review of the
Literature
Version: 4Date:22 October 2009
Reviewer: omar shah
Reviewer's report:
Though the authors have modified this manuscript as per any suggestion, I still
feel that it is not yet fit for publication.
Major Compulsory Revisions
Abstract:
• Reduce the text and be more focused on what you think is the theme of this
paper.
Introduction:
• Reduced and rephrase the text.
Result Section:
• It is far too long and confusing.
• Draw a sketch showing ectopic drainage of bile duct.
• Description of findings may be considerably reduced by referring to tables.
Discussion:
• It is exhaustive and needs drastic reduction in size.
• English language needs editing
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-10-1 (2010)

Reviewer's report
Title:How do patients with inflammatory bowel disease want their biological
therapy administered?
Version: 1Date:2 July 2009
Reviewer: Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet
Reviewer's report:
The authors adequately and extensively responded to all my comments. I have
no further correction to suggest.
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 have received consulting fees from Abbott Laboratoires and UCB Pharma;
lecture fees from speaking at continuing medical education events from
Centocor; and grant support from UCB Pharma.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-99 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:A novel scoring system for prognostic prediction in
d-galactosamine/lipopolysaccharide-induced fulminant hepatic failure BALB/c
mice
Version: 1Date:21 August 2009
Reviewer: Shosuke Kojo
Reviewer's report:
This is a good try. However authors should compare their score using small
molecules with conventional parameters such as ALT, AST, LDH etc. Is their
score superior to conventional parameters?
As a minor point, in Materials and methods, what is "10 microL EDTA"?
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-9-99 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:A novel scoring system for prognostic prediction in
d-galactosamine/lipopolysaccharide-induced fulminant hepatic failure BALB/c
mice
Version: 1Date:11 September 2009
Reviewer: Justin Nguyen
Reviewer's report:
The authors posed an important question, designed the study well, and applied
sound methods to analyze the data. The data are sound. However, I do have a
few questions including the ones on the limitations of the study.
1. Many institutions do not allow the use of “dead” of the study animals to be the
endpoints. Would you please clarify how you define the premortum
characteristics including clinical behaviors to select the surviving and dead
animals in your study.
2. DSI appears to be potentially promising. However, at what time points in the
clinical course of the patients with FHF would the equation be applicable? Would
you predict that is there a possible time point in the course of FHF that DSI would
not be effective or predictive such as if the equation is applied after 12 or 24
hours since the induction or onset of FHF? Are there any other limitations of this
study?
3. I would like to see a table documenting the biochemical profile including ALT,
INR, Glucose, T-bil, urea, phosphate, and b-hydroxybutyrate levels of the 2
surviving and dead groups at 6 hours after Gal-LPS induction. In the table, the
Cliché and Kings’ Colleage Hospital criteria should be included.
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:
declare that I have no competing interests' below
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-99 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:A novel scoring system for prognostic prediction in
d-galactosamine/lipopolysaccharide-induced fulminant hepatic failure BALB/c
mice
Version: 1Date:14 September 2009
Reviewer: Martin L Yarmush
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, the authors attempt to develop a scoring system to predict the
prognosis of fulminant hepatic failure (FHF). The scoring system was developed
in a d-galactosamine/lipopolysaccharide-treated mouse model of FHF. Levels of
plasma metabolites were quantified using gas chromatography/time-of-flight
mass spectrometry (metabonomics) and data were processed with partial least
squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA). The metabonomic data were used to
construct the scoring system by multivariate logistic regression. This study is an
extension of the authors’ prior work in which they used the same FHF animal
model to identify 5 biomarkers including phosphate, #-hydroxybutyrate (HB),
urea, glucose, and lactate which may constitute a set of markers for early
diagnosis and prognosis of FHF. The results are presented in three figures which
are described in the text. The reported findings are: 1) ribitol was not present in
the mouse plasma thereby allowing it to be used as an internal standard, 2)
loading plots revealed that plasma concentrations of 5 biomarkers (phosphate,
##, urea, glucose, and lactate) had the highest weightings on clustering
differences at 4, 5, and 6 hour time points, and 3) a death/survival index (DSI) of
>0.65 or <-0.65 corresponded to a 93.3% or 6.7% probability of survival,
respectively.
In order for this manuscript to be acceptable for publication, the authors would
need to address the comments below.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis used to derive the DSI, the
authors state that “After 3 steps, lactate and glucose were removed, and the
other variables (HB, urea, and phosphate) were used to calculate the
nomogram”. The authors should explain why lactate and glucose were removed
in calculating the DSI.
2. The scoring system developed in this study was based on the
d-galactosamine/lipopolysaccharide-treated mouse model of FHF. Whether this
FHF animal model has a direct correlation to an etiology of FHF seen clinically is
unknown. In addition, it is unknown whether such a scoring system based on
metabonomics and multivariate logistic regression would be applicable to
predicting the prognosis FHF seen in clinical practice. The authors should state
this as a potential limitation of the study in the Discussion section.
3. There are several grammatical errors throughout the text that should be
corrected.
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' below. If your reply is yes to any,
please give details below.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-99 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:A novel scoring system for prognostic prediction in
d-galactosamine/lipopolysaccharide-induced fulminant hepatic failure BALB/c
mice
Version: 2Date:25 October 2009
Reviewer: Shosuke Kojo
Reviewer's report:
Authors made additional experiments to respond to my questions and
appropriately revised their manuscript.
My major question was "Authors should compare their score using small
molecules with conventional parameters such as ALT, AST, LDH etc. Is their
score superior to conventional parameters?"
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-9-99 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:A novel scoring system for prognostic prediction in
d-galactosamine/lipopolysaccharide-induced fulminant hepatic failure BALB/c
mice
Version: 2Date:29 October 2009
Reviewer: Martin L Yarmush
Reviewer's report:
In this revised manuscript, the authors have sufficiently addressed the points
raised by the reviewers. In its present form, the manuscript is acceptable 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.
Declaration of competing interests:
“I declare that I have no competing interests”
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-9-99 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:A novel scoring system for prognostic prediction in
d-galactosamine/lipopolysaccharide-induced fulminant hepatic failure BALB/c
mice
Version: 2Date:3 November 2009
Reviewer: Justin Nguyen
Reviewer's report:
The article is acceptable in the current revised form.
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-9-97 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Polymorphisms in gene encoding TRPV1-receptor involved in pain
perception are unrelated to chronic pancreatitis in a Dutch population.
Version: 1Date:24 September 2009
Reviewer: Derek O'Reilly
Reviewer's report:
Polymorphisms in gene encoding TRPV1-receptor involved in pain perception
are unrelated to chronic pancreatitis in a Dutch population.
Overall, this is an excellent paper. The background sets the scene well; providing
a clear rationale for the study. The aim is clearly stated. The laboratory methods
are well described. The statistical analysis is appropriate. The results are clearly
presented. The discussion puts the results in the context of TRPV1 research in
general and in pancreatitis, in particular. The limitations of the study are
acknowledged. The references are appropriate and up to date. The tables and
figures are well constructed and enhance the text.
Major Compulsory Revisions
None.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Insert “A” before “few” (Background 2nd para, 2nd sentence), if the meaning is
intended to convey that there are sufficient studies to implicate TRPV1 in chronic
pancreatitis, rather than too few.
2. Methods (Subjects):insert “daily” or “per day” into the definition of alcoholic
chronic pancreatitis.
3. Methods (Genotyping – sentence 4): Substitute “accept” with “except”.
4. Discussion (4th para, 2nd sentence): typographical error; “at” rather than “art”.
Discretionary Revisions
1. Methods (Statistical analysis); perhaps define the sample size where Fisher’s
exact size was used).
2. Discussion (limitations); consider addressing those who would wish to see an
alcoholic control group.
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-9-97 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Polymorphisms in gene encoding TRPV1-receptor involved in pain
perception are unrelated to chronic pancreatitis in a Dutch population.
Version: 1Date:5 October 2009
Reviewer: Fred S Gorelick
Reviewer's report:
This study examines the potential contribution by TRPV1 to chronic pancreatitis.
The hypothesis appears to be that these mutations cause disease. In a mixed
etiology population of patients with chronic pancreatitis the authors found no
such association.
Comments
1) Most studies of chronic pancreatitis that have examined TRPV1 have linked it
to pain perception and not pancreatitis inflammation. The one study (15) linking it
to inflammation was as study of acute and not chronic inflammation. Also, these
were studies in knockouts and compensation by other receptors could not be
excluded. These issues need to be discussed.
2) The study appears to be organized to address the issue "are polymorphisms in
TRV1 associated with chronic pancreatitis" in a broad sense, but an equally
important issue (suggested by most studies) would be "is is associated with
pain? This is a much more difficult study to do than the one undertaken by these
authors-they would have to find patients with other manifestations of chronic
pancreatitis (calcification, insufficiency, similar duration and etiology) and ask
whether the levels of pain differs. At a minimum this issue needs to be discussed.
Although their population is small, it might be worthwhile assessing whether
pancreatitis pain differed in accordance with TRPV1 polymorphisms.
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-9-97 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Polymorphisms in gene encoding TRPV1-receptor involved in pain
perception are unrelated to chronic pancreatitis.
Version: 2Date:12 November 2009
Reviewer: Fred S Gorelick
Reviewer's report:
The authors have responded to my inquires and modified their text. These
preliminary findings should be of interest to both investigators and clinicians
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-9-98 (2009)

Reviewer's report
Title:Sensitivity is not an intrinsic property of a diagnostic test: empirical
evidence from histological diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection
Version: 1Date:8 June 2009
Reviewer: Javed Yakoob
Reviewer's report:
When assessing the work, please consider the following points:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
The question posed by the authors is well defined.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
The methods used are inadequate. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for
patient’s enrolment are not described. The number of biopsies taken from the
antrum along the greater curvature of the stomach is not given. The biopsies
should have been taken also from corpus and fundus along the greater curvature
of the stomach as it is known to colonize multiple sites. Please define mild,
moderate and marked density of colonization with H. pylori.
3. Are the data sound?
No. Methods used are inadequate and inclusion of patients previously receiving
treatment for H.pylori infection compromises the study results. Is the mild
infection same as mild density of colonization of H.pylori? What was the
distribution of different grades of density of H.pylori, inflammation intestinal
metaplasia and atrophic gastritis on histology in respective populations? How did
PCR results correlated with different grades of density and inflammation? What
was the incidence of antibiotics and acid reducing drugs usage in Portuguese
population? Beside antibiotics it is important to ascertain what proportion of
patients used proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and H2 receptor blockers as these
patients complained of dyspepsia. This will explain low density of H. pylori in
Mozambican population if these patients were on PPI. Please give numbers with
percentages in the result section for correlation.
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?
No
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
No. Why were gastric biopsy samples from 45 Mozambican patients available
only from antrum?
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
Yes
9. Is the writing acceptable?
Yes
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