JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-12 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Gender affects on clinical features of achalasia: a prospective study Title: 
 1  6 December 2005 Version: Date: 
 michael F vaezi Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Well conducted and presented study of important clinical significance in a relatively uncommon 
disorder ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
The authors should comment on the limitation of multiple comparison and how this might effect p 
value (significance) in their study. The study had adequate power to compare about 10-11 variables 
based on their sample size. They should comment on how many different comparisons were made 
in total and if more than 10-11 then should adjust their p value representing significance. 
Additionally, the authors should comment on if the continued chest pain symptoms may have been 
related to less than adequate objective esophageal emptying (i.e. how was treatment effectiveness 
judged? was it based on symptoms alone or barium emptying on esophagram?) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have no competing interest
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-12 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Gender affects on clinical features of achalasia: a prospective study Title: 
 1  4 January 2006 Version: Date: 
 Alexander Rosemurgy Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I have reviewed the manuscript and feel that the manuscript has several needs. 
First, I want to congratulate the authors on there efforts on behalf of the scholarly publication. 
The manuscript needs some editing. There are typographical errors, there are several misspellings. 
There are punctuations errors. There are some errors of format. Spell check should be utilized and 
the manuscript should be reviewed for specific details. For example, the first sentence in the conclusions on page 10 begins with the word “it”. The I should be capitalized. 
In this study, roughly 200 patients half of them women underwent dilation and or botox for treatment 
of achalasia. It is not clear as to how many patient may have undergone more than one dilation or 
more than one botox injection. It is not clear as to how the therapy was chosen and results after 
treatments are not noted in the manuscript. 
I also note that dyphagia seems notable after therapy. This is noted in table four. Also regurgitation is 
notable. 
Also, the significance of the manuscript is not stated. The general affect on clinical feature of 
achalasia are actually quite insignificant the only difference being that women have more chest pain 
before and after myotomy as well, age is a factor as patients older than 56 have less chest pain. 
Possibility this is a consequence of very few questions being asked as it appears the questionnaire 
was not extensive. 
I do not feel that the priority on this publication would be very high. As a minimum request that the 
manuscript be reviewed for grammatical errors and format. 
The choice of therapies is interesting as opposed to myotomy and it would be interesting to have the 
author’s comments as to why they chose dilation and botox for therapy for these patients. 
It was an honor and a privilege to have the opportunity to review this manuscript and I certainly 
would be happy to discuss this or work with the authors in any way that I may be helpful to you and 
to them. My comments are meant to be constructive. I commend the authors on there efforts. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-12 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Gender affects on clinical features of achalasia: a prospective study Title: 
 2  13 February 2006 Version: Date: 
 michael F vaezi Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have satisfied my requested changes 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-41 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Time trends in socioeconomic differences in inciedence rates of cancers of gastro-intestinal tract in Title: 
Finland 
 1  18 July 2006 Version: Date: 
 alessandra tavani Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is a clear, well written paper providing a quantification for a well known association between social class and/or education and risk of selected cancers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 1)In the Results the authors use the abbreviation "SES" without definition 2)Figure 1 and 2: it would be preferable to use the cancer anatomical site rather than a,b,or c. The lines 
indicating the incident rates should be different for the four levels of social class, while they appears the 
same either in the computer screen or in the print. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-41 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Time trends in socioeconomic differences in inciedence rates of cancers of gastro-intestinal tract in Title: 
Finland 
 1  26 July 2006 Version: Date: 
 Guruprasad Aithal Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is a large population based database study investigating time trends in the socioeconomic difference sin the cancer incidence. Study has used sound methodology and the results are reported with attention to detail. But, the discussion as it is dull and can be improved by rewriting it. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
As the main focus of the paper is to investigate the time trends of incidence of cancer in diffrent 
socioeconomic classes, it is usefull to group those which have not changed, increased and decreased 
together in the discussion. Then discuss why each group are behaving that way in terms of what risk factors 
are effecting what? 
Discussion as it is presented is dull. It will be most intersting to discuss whether the findings of the study 
support the authors own hypothesis ( as in the introduction) that 'lower classes adopt life habits of higher classes over a period time'. If that is true which cancer trends are supportive of this and which are not. 
- Authors present both arguments in support of this (smoking in women) as well as against (physical activity 
has increased in higher socioeconomic group and decreased in lower group). 
Another point to clarify in the discussion- is whether the findings support to the theory that incidence rates in 
the higher class in the past accurately reflect the population incidence now. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have no competing interest.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-41 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Time trends in socioeconomic differences in inciedence rates of cancers of gastro-intestinal tract in Title: 
Finland 
 2  20 October 2006 Version: Date: 
 Farin Kamangar Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-41 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Time trends in socioeconomic differences in inciedence rates of cancers of gastro-intestinal tract in Title: 
Finland 
 2  3 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Guruprasad Aithal Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
Authors have responded satisfactorily for the comments. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
No conflict of interest
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-43 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Therapeutic approach to downhill esophageal varices bleeding due to SVC syndrome in Behcets Title: 
disease: a case report. 
 1  19 October 2006 Version: Date: 
 Atif Zaman Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is an interesting case report of an unusual cause of esophageal varices. The authors point out appropriately that sclerotherapy within the upper third of the esophagus has significant risks. Authors demonstrate the band ligation is not only therapeutic, but also safe for DEV. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 1) the authors should mention if they are going to do surveillance endoscopies in this patient? 
2) Table 1 is not essential. Its information should be incorporated into the text. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-43 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Therapeutic approach to downhill esophageal varices bleeding due to SVC syndrome in Behcets Title: 
disease: a case report. 
 1  7 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Riccardo Marmo Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
Minor Compulsory Revisions 
This case report is well structured and there are no major concerns. 
Minor comments : 
1) abbreviations in the title and abstract would rather be avoided. Change the corresponding terms. 2) Page 5 : sentence should be stopped after “hematemesis”, since it is unclear how the entity of the bleeding was measured. 
. 
3) The Pemberton ‘s sign should be more clearly explained in the text “….“Within 30 seconds after raised 
both arms simultaneously (Pemberton's maneuver), marked facial plethora (Pemberton's sign) develop, indicating compression of the jugular vein 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-43 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Therapeutic approach to "downhill" esophageal varices bleeding due to SVC syndrome in Behcets Title: 
disease: a case report. 
 2  14 December 2006 Version: Date: 
 Yih-Huei Uen Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
N/A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
For easy and clear understand, please add one new format column on the left side of Etiology and/or Indication and note the related words or numbers on it on Table 1, such as category [ref.] beside the left side of Etiology and/or Indication; 1 [10; 11; 15] beside the left side of Intrathoracic goiter; 2 [1] beside the 
left side of Tumor; 3 [13] beside the left side of Tumor; 4 [21] beside the left side of Systemic vasculitis; 5 
[29] beside the left side of Emergency treatment; 6 [current report] beside the left side of Behcet’s disease. 
On table 1 again, please point out the accurate or unspecified disease, if possible, instead of “emergency 
treatment”. 
Table 1 again, change Side effects into side effects, and Band ligation into band ligation. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) N/A 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) N/A 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interest.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-42 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Lack of significant association of an insertion/deletion polymorphism in the angiotensin converting Title: 
enzyme (ACE) gene with tropical calcific pancreatitis 
 1  13 September 2006 Version: Date: 
 cedric le marechal Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The work presented by Bhaskar et al. is a case-control study that aims to evaluate the association of the 
ACE gene Ins/Del polymorphism in a population from india that suffers of Tropical Chronic Pancreatitis 
(TCP) or Fibro-Calculous Pancreatic Diabetes (FCPD). This is a replicate of the work published by Oruc et 
al (JOP 2004;5(6):457-463) that was the first to investigate, at the genetic level, the association between the 
ACE gene and chronic pancreatitis. 
These two works are in accordance to discard any association between ACE-Ins/del and chronic 
pancreatitis. Nevertheless, the work from Bhaskar et al. is original concerning the phenotype (TCP/FCPD is 
encountered only in the tropical region), and the genetic background of the studied population highlighted by 
the very high incidence of the p.N34S variant of SPINK1 gene (#50%) compared to the 10 to 25% in the 
caucasian patients. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
1) The original study from Oruc et al. (#ref 26) does not appear in the text till it is mentionned at the 
beginning of the last paragraph of the discussion section. It seems to be necessary to mention the first work 
that generated the hypothesis in the background section of the abstract and text. 
2) In the Methods section - Genetic analysis part : 
The analysis conditions have to be more accurately described concerning the design of the primers. Providing the sequence of the primers or a reference would allow to replicate the experiment. Are the 
primers outside of the Ins/del or do they pinpoint the insertion junction ? these precision should clarify the 
reader about the "Ambiguity" in the genotyping results that are noted. If the primers are outside, the size difference between Ins to Del genotype is 287nt !! Can you precise the criterias that led you to select the 10% samples that were confirmed by sequencing 
(randomly ?). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-42 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Lack of significant association of an insertion/deletion polymorphism in the angiotensin converting Title: 
enzyme (ACE) gene with tropical calcific pancreatitis 
 2  12 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Atsushi Masamune Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
The manuscript has been well-revised following the reviewer’s comments. The reviewer feels that the 
manuscript is now acceptable for publication in BMC Gastroenterology. 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-42 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Lack of significant association of an insertion/deletion polymorphism in the angiotensin converting Title: 
enzyme (ACE) gene with tropical calcific pancreatitis 
 3  4 December 2006 Version: Date: 
 Joost P Drenth Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
The authors have clarified all outstanding questions now and I have no additional points to make. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-39 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 The Changes in Renal Function after a Single Dose of intravenous Furosemide in Patients with Title: 
Compensated Liver cirrhosis 
 1  18 August 2006 Version: Date: 
 Pietro Invernizzi Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
this paper by Assy et al reports original data, is well executed and is important in the field. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
The introduction session needs to be shorten. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-39 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 The Changes in Renal Function after a Single Dose of intravenous Furosemide in Patients with Title: 
Compensated Liver cirrhosis 
 3  25 September 2006 Version: Date: 
 Laurent Spahr Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
The authors have only partially responded to criticisms and comments. Several points have not been taken into consideration: international units are not given (micromole pr liter and not mg/dl); data are not given as median and range; individual values are not given in the figures; Results: there seems to be a tendency for 
an increase in DMSA in the furosemide 120 mg group as compared to the 40 mg group (5.6% vs 3.6%). 
This a probably a type II error due to the small size of the population. Were there any correlation between DMSA changes and 8h urinary sodium changes? Did the patients not increasing DMSA had a lower 
natriuretic response to furosemide? Why did the authors not confirm in this study the correlation at baseline 
between DMSA and GFR that they observed previously? 
Results: this section remains poorly organized. Some information regarding individual values in DMSA 
uptake are given in the abstract but not in the Results section!! Discussion and Conclusion: The increase in DMSA uptake following furosemide injection was observed in 
only 55% of the patients, which underlines that this test is probably less sensitive than UNa excretion at 8 
hours (but the proportion of the patients who increased UNa at 8 hrs is not given..). In addition, the DMSA 
response to 40 or 120 mg of furosemide does not allow to discriminate the response to diuretic, and thus the 
predictive value of this test (as compared to UNa at 8hrs) appears of limited value. 
In the Discussion section, the authors say: “ …clinical implication of this study shows…. that it identifies a 
subgroup of patients not responsive to diuretics..”. This assumption is not in accordance with the Results. Conclusion: The authors say: .. this may help in differentiating patients with lower treatment response…… but this is not supported by the data, showing that the 8hrs UNa was superior. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
English and spelling errors have not been revised (weak and not week, Henle and not Henley, …renin and 
not renine; ). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Reject because scientifically unsound What next?: 
 An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a scientific/medical journal Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-39 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 The Changes in Renal Function after a Single Dose of intravenous Furosemide in Patients with Title: 
Compensated Liver cirrhosis 
 4  20 October 2006 Version: Date: 
 Laurent Spahr Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have taken into consideration some comments, but I do not see the graphs with individual values of the patients. The manuscript remains difficult to read, with several spelling errors, and results (in the results section) not 
given in a logical order. Abstract : the Background section is not related to the aim and the results of the 
study. 
In particular, the authors must explain why, if they claim that DMSA uptake is a good technique to measure 
GFR, they did observe an increase only in about half of the patients with well compensated, non ascitic 
cirrhosis (in whom renal function is usually preserved). Thus, it may be suggested that the method of DMSA uptake lacks sensitivity and specificity in this setting. Regarding the accuracy of DMSA in the quantification of GFR, it is scientifically incorrect to assess that 
DMSA uptake is superior to measured or calculated creatinine clearance without comparing it with the gold 
standard (that is inulin clearance) in the same patients. 
The characteristics of those patients (almost half of the population, 45% of the group) who did not increase DMSA must be given. 
Taken together, this study shows that DMSA uptake in patients with cirrhosis and preserved liver function 
increases following IV furosemide (40 or 120 mg), but; 1) this effect is absent in almost half of the patients 
without apparent reasons; 2) this DMSA response does apparently not discriminate those patients who will 
and those who will not develop renal failure (which will be difficult to demonstrate in Child A patients!); 3) the 
DMSA uptake is not correlated to the natriuretic effect of furosemide, and 4) this “dynamic” DMSA uptake is 
not compared to the gold standard for the measurement of GFR (inulin). The consequence of this message 
is a possible overdiagnosis of renal failure in well compensated cirrhotics. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Reject because scientifically unsound What next?: 
 An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a scientific/medical journal Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-39 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 The Changes in Renal Function after a Single Dose of intravenous Furosemide in Patients with Title: 
Compensated Liver cirrhosis 
 4  2 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Giuliano Ramadori Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I read the manuscript and the comments as well the answer to the comments. 
I would suggest that the authors introduce the concept of a 
Subclinical hypovolaemia in patients with Child A-cirrhosis in the introduction 
Mentioning the paper Caregaro et.al Eur J Clin Invest (1985)15:360-364 
And discussing the eventual importance of using the the DMSA-uptake unde furosemide-administration 
To identify those patients who could develop kidney-problems under diuretics and 
To further discriminate those patients within the Child A-cirrhosis-patients. 
A further study could than be performed in those patients with reduced uptake after 
albumin-administration.Also this concept should be introduced in the discussion 
Mentioning Schindler et al.JHepatol (1999) 31:1132 and J Trotter et al.Dig.Dis.Sci(2005)50:1356-1360 
The paper could than be published. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-39 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 The Changes in Renal Function after a Single Dose of intravenous Furosemide in Patients with Title: 
Compensated Liver cirrhosis 
 5  15 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Giuliano Ramadori Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
the authors made modifications of the manuscript according to the requests. The paper can now be accepted for publication ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-40 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Urokinase-type plasminogen activator supports liver repair independent of binding to its cellular Title: 
receptor 
 1  6 July 2006 Version: Date: 
 Roser Lopez Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors present a well-written and well-documented study analysing the role of urokinase type 
plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) in liver regeneration after an acute injury, in an in vivo model. 
Impaired liver regeneration in uPA and plasminogen deficient mice have been reported. Due to the 
described importance of uPAR in concentrating the plasminogen activation in cell surface, the authors study 
in this work that binding of uPA to its receptor uPAR would be required for correct liver regeneration. 
The results show convincingly that liver regeneration takes place correctly in uPAR deficient mice, alone or 
combined with tPA deficiency, when compared to uPA deficient mice impaired liver regeneration. 
The work is well done, the conclussions are well suported by the data and the results are convincing. I 
therefore recommend the publication of the mannuscript. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
--- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
1. Plg is often used along the text as abbreviation for plasminogen, but it is never defined in the text. 
2. Labelling to figure 6 is confusing, instead of indicating proteins expressed in each case, authors should 
notate each genotype (wt, uPAÂº, uPARÂº or uPARÂº/tPAÂº), as in all the other figures. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-40 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Urokinase-type plasminogen activator supports liver repair independent of its cellular receptor Title: 
 2  7 October 2006 Version: Date: 
 Wendy Mars Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
The authors are to be commended for the addition of the data on HGF; however, unfortunately, although it 
IS from a publication, the method they chose to enrich for HGF has an essential flaw in it that makes their conclusions invalid. When using a detergent free protein isolation method in liver, if one discards the pellet, 
one discards the matrix/membrane fraction which is where much of the HGF resides. In fact, the discarded 
fraction is the most important one with regards to whether or not the liver is actively processing HGF which is what they were hoping to analyze. I can recommend two solutions. The better solution is to repeat the experiment but instead of discarding the pellet, solubilize it in SDS with appropriate inhibitors (including 
amiloride and other serine protease inhibitors is essential here since uPA and plasmin also reside in this 
fraction). Alternatively, you can alter the text to reflect the fact that you are only looking at cytosolic HGF. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
The additional information provided makes this a much improved manuscript; however, there are a few 
things that must be corrected/clarified before publication. 
1. On page 7 in the purification section for HGF, the word is "Eluate"--not "Elute". 2. In thge HGF figure (which I hope will be redone), you need to label what your control lane is, put the null sign on the uPAR, and add the sizes. 
3. On page 11, I believe that the authors meant to write uPA instead of uPAR in the middle of the page 
("fibrin clearance is impaired in "uPAR" mice"). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-40 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Urokinase-type plasminogen activator supports liver repair independent of its cellular receptor Title: 
 2  26 October 2006 Version: Date: 
 Gavin E Arteel Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
None required 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
None Required 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
None required 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-38 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Post traumatic intra thoracic spleen presenting with Upper GI Bleed!; A case report Title: 
 1  8 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Seyfettin köklü Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
too much general information and repetition of case in the discussion part 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
some missing labels 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-37 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Acceptability and outcomes of the Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement- Title: 
patients and care givers perspectives. 
 1  19 August 2006 Version: Date: 
 Anthony Catto-Smith Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This study addresses the "consumer" acceptability of gastrostomy placement over a 6 year period in an adult population in Pakistan. The authors have administered a structured questionnaire which revealed generalized acceptance for the procedure with the exception of concerns about cost and time spent feeding 
the recipient. The study is important in that the setting is a developing country (Pakistan) for which there is 
limited other information available in this area. The findings are ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) There are no major revisions to be undertaken. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) The manuscript would benefit from careful attention to both spelling and 
grammatical expression. 
The important findings are, I believe, the concerns expressed about cost and time spent. Since this study addresses a population in a developing country, these would appear to be important issues and must be 
addressed in the discussion. Does the additional cost of the procedure, tubing, supplies and specialist 
feeds realistically place this technology out of the reach of the "average" Pakistani? What components of 
the feeding regimen have lead to additional time spent since presumably these patients previously were fed 
either orally (in the presence of dysphagia) or by nasogastric tube. Comments to address these findings 
need to be added to the discussion. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-37 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Acceptability and outcomes of the Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement- Title: 
patients and care givers perspectives. 
 4  2 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Anthony Catto-Smith Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have responded well and appropriately to my previous suggestions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
None identified ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-36 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Predictors of gallstone composition in 1025 symptomatic gallstones from Northern Germany Title: 
 1  5 August 2006 Version: Date: 
 Karel van Erpecum Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Summary: in this manuscript, gallstone composition and demographic factors affecting gallstone composition were determined in 1074 patients from Germany, with the aid of Fourier transformed infrared 
spectrometry. Cholesterol was the most prevalent substance, and % cholesterol in stones was associated 
with BMI and female sex. Based on these results, the authors claim a shift in gallstone composition in 
recent decades, with less pigment and more cholesterol stones. 
Major comments: 
1. previous studies were done in Western countries (for example the Netherlands: Scand J 
Gastroenterology 1988;23:948-54 and USA: Am J Dig Dis 1974;19;585-9). These studies generally indicated predominance of cholesterol stones, in agreement with the current (much larger) study. However, 
with increasing age, there is an increasing contribution of pigment stones in these previous studies, 
especially in the elderly. Unfortunately, in the present study, patients older than 65 years were excluded. 
This could significantly affect and bias results, and comparison with older studies becomes difficult. This 
limitation should be mentioned clearly. Also, in previous studies, cholesterol content was determined by chemical assay of cholesterol % in the stone, and cholesterol stones were defined as cholesterol content 
above 50% and pigment stones as stones with cholesterol content less than 20%. In contrast, in the current 
study, substances (e.g. cholesterol) were considered major if they comprised more than 30% of the 
gallstone. To enable comparison with the older studies, differentiation between cholesterol and pigment stones should be done according to the older criteria. 
2. Ideally, results of Fourier transformed infrared spectrometry and chemical determination of stone 
cholesterol content should be done in a limited nr of stones, to confirm equivalence of these methods in the 
hand of the authors 
3. patients were contacted by questionnaire. Data on % response should be given. 
4. The information in the Tables appears excessive 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-36 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Predictors of gallstone composition in 1025 symptomatic gallstones from Northern Germany Title: 
 2  2 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Karel van Erpecum Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General no remaining criticisms 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
none 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
none 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-6-36 (2006)

Reviewer's report 
 Predictors of gallstone composition in 1025 symptomatic gallstones from Northern Germany Title: 
 2  13 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Ulf Gustafsson Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I have read the authors reply letter and I find their reply and the changes 
in the manuscript acceptable. I suggest that you accept the manuscript for publication in BMC Gastroenterology. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)