JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-5 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Central neuropeptide Y receptors are involved in 3rd ventricular ghrelin induced fasted motor Title: 
activity of the colon in conscious fed rats. 
 1  24 September 2004 Version: Date: 
 Akio Inui Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors demonstrated the interesting findings that exogenous ghrelin either icv or ip stimulates colonic transit time in conscious rats via neuropeptide Y Y1 receptor in the central nervous system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 used the word ?fasted motor activity? in the title, but they actually measured colonic transit time. 
2) BIBP-3226 may produce central depressive effects in contrast to BIBO-3304 developed later. 
Could the authors show the evidence that B1BP-3226 acted specifically in their system at the dose used? 3) Labeling of figures 1 and 2 is wrong. 
4) The authors should refer to not only Ref.23 but also Ref.1 (and potentially Nat Rev Neurosci 
2:551-560,2001) to indicate that NPY Y1 receptor mediates ghrelin-induced feeding. 5) It is already reported that ghrelin induces fasted motor activity in the stomach and the duodenum 
of conscious fed rats via the vagus nerve (Refs.10 and 11). NPY Y2 receptor appears to be involved 
in this action. The authors need to include these findings and to discuss in more detail the potential 
mechanisms by which ghrelin stimulates colonic motor function. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-5 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Central neuropeptide Y receptors are involved in 3rd ventricular ghrelin induced fasted motor Title: 
activity of the colon in conscious fed rats. 
 1  27 October 2004 Version: Date: 
 Theo Peeters Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Interesting piece of work. Although the findings could have been explored in more detail they deserve 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) 
Background. Omit reference 10 at line 13. 
Results. Figures 1 and 2 are interchanged. Vertical axis legends overlap with labels. Horizontal axis 
labesl fo figure 1 should be doses instead of A,B,C etc.. Abbreviation MI is not in general list and it 
took me a while to realize it was micro-injection and is explained in the legend. Actually it is 
superfluous. Drop MI. 
Tables give the same data as the figures. Drop the Tables. 
Discussion. "....as well as NPY antiserum [10]." Should be [11]. 
Put always periods after brackets of reference numbers. 
I think the data, as well as other studies, suggest that ghrelin acts on NPY neurons. It is therefore in 
my opinion not corret to say that "...ghrelin unfolds.. by acting on central NPY1 but NPY2 rceptors". Besides the word NOT is missing here. This kind of confusing is repeated a few times in the 
discussion. See also the paragraph Conclusions for example. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-5 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Central neuropeptide Y receptors are involved in 3rd ventricular ghrelin induced alteration of Title: 
colonic transit time in conscious fed rats. 
 3  15 December 2004 Version: Date: 
 Akio Inui Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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-5-4 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Survey of general practitioners' knowledge about Helicobacter pylori infection Title: 
 2  7 December 2004 Version: Date: 
 andrew S day Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have responded to comments appropriately. The amendments improve the manuscript 
overall. 
There remain, however, some minor aspects that require attention. There are several places where 
Helicobacter pylori is not yet italicised. The newly added sentence regarding respondents access to the various tests requires review of grammar. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 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: 
NO
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-2 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Impact of hiatal hernia on histological pattern of non-erosive reflux disease Title: 
 1  14 September 2004 Version: Date: 
 eamonn M quigley Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Interesting, if not surprising, observations. The relationships between HH and severe forms of 
GERD are well known. What is of interest here is the suggestion that lesser forms of esophagitis 
and "microscopic" esophagitis, in particular, are associated with HH. The numbers are small and pH 
studies were not performed; the authors cannot address the critical issue, therefore: does a HH 
predict those NERD patients who have microsopic esophagitis, positive pH tests for acid esposure 
and an excellent response to PPI? Will the absence of an HH indicate that the patient has "functional heartburn", will not respond to a PPI and may do poorly with anti-reflux surgery? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 1. What is meant by "cross-fashion" manner, in page 4? 2. Was any attempt made to power the study, or how did the authors decide on the numbers of 
patients? 
3. Please check all refs for spelling of authors 4. Was any attempt made to define whether the hernias were reducing or non-reducing? 5. Figs 1 and 2 could be omitted 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 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: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-2 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Impact of hiatal hernia on histological pattern of non-erosive reflux disease Title: 
 1  14 September 2004 Version: Date: 
 Ronnie Fass Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
I am not clear about the meaning of the histological findings that the authors related to patients with 
non-erosive reflux disease and hiatal hernia. The authors claim that these are more severe histopathological findings, but provided very little information to support the claim. Additionally, the authors did not demonstrate that the presence of these histological findings in patients with 
non-erosive reflux disease is associated, for example, with more severe presentation of NERD. In 
fact, the authors provided no insight into the meaning of their findings. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. On the background: Reference #1 is 12 years old and there are other more updated references. 
2. Background, Paragraph 3: Change the word “elusive” to “unknown”. 
3. Methods: Is there a reason why the authors elected to biopsy the esophagus 3 cm above the lower 
esophageal sphincter and not somewhere else? 
4. Results: The results are presented with almost no p values. I am not clear if the superiority of one 
over the other is numerically or statistically determined. 
5. “P=2,61E-6” is unclear. 
6. The last paragraph under histological finding that includes information about “basal zone 
hyperplasia and loss of glycogen accompanied hiatal hernia in all cases …” has unclear meaning. The authors should further elaborate on the meaning of seeing certain histological findings in 
patients with hiatal hernia as compared with those without hiatal hernia. 
7. Discussion, first paragraph: citation #1 is used even though the statement that is made has 
nothing to do with this citation. 
8. Discussion, last paragraph: The explanation is very confusing and the authors should make an 
effort to clarify it. 
9. Table 1: Add percentages to the numbers. 
10. Figure 1: Instead of the number of patients, change to percentages. 
11. Figure 3: Overall, the number of subjects is small and p values are missing. 
12. Figure 4: P values are missing and different colors are needed to separate the different 
histopathological findings. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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: 
 Yes Statistical review:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-2 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Impact of hiatal hernia on histological pattern of non-erosive reflux disease Title: 
 3  28 October 2004 Version: Date: 
 eamonn M quigley Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Accept 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-2 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 Impact of hiatal hernia on histological pattern of non-erosive reflux disease Title: 
 3  19 November 2004 Version: Date: 
 Ronnie Fass Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
I would still mention in the text that non of the symptom characteristics 
was found to be significant because it is clinically important. 
Otherwise recommend to accept the paper for publication.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-5-1 (2005)

Reviewer's report 
 A rare case of ascending colon actinomycosis mimicking cancer Title: 
 1  30 August 2004 Version: Date: 
 Rumelia Koren Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
This is a nice case report of a rare case of colonic actinomycosis. How ever few minor essential 
corrections are required. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Along the hole case report the missleadind term " malignant inflammatory tumor" has been used. 
The wright terms should be euther "Malignant tumor" or " Inflamatory pseudo tumor". 2. Refference No. 3 is not mentioned in the text. 3. Lines 10-11 on page 3 is not relevant to refference 2. 
4. Line 13, page 3 - The treatment of choice is antibiotic theray when ever possible and not surgical 
one. 5. Case report, page 3 line 3 the term " the past medical history was free should be re write. 6. Line 3, page 4 - "Arterial pressure" should be replaced by " Arterial blood pressure". 
7. Line 1 page 6 should be revised. 
8. Fig. 2 should be replaced by more representative figure with higher magnitude focusing on the "sulfure granules". 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-33 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Phospholipids reduce gastric cancer cell adhesion to extracellularmatrix in vitro Title: 
 1  27 September 2004 Version: Date: 
 Anna Litynska Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
In this article the authors present an analysis of the role of different concentration of phospholipids in 
the reduction of gastric cancer cells adhesion to ECM proteins. This is a topic of interest for cancer 
researchers because adhesion of tumor cells to ECM proteins is an important part of dissemination of malignancy. From their results the authors concluded that phospholipids possess capacity of controlling abdominal nidation of tumor cells to ECM and that the lipid emulsion may be a beneficial 
adjuvant in surgery. This observation is potentially interesting and of great importance however the 
major drawback of this study is that it was made only on one cell line which precludes making conclusive statements. The authors should mention it very clearly, also in the title of the article. I find this article interesting from medical point of view but very poorly written. There are a lot of mistakes 
in the text. 
-Major Compulsony Revisions 
a) The major drawback of this study is that it was made only on one cell line which precludes making 
conclusive statements. The authors should mention it very clearly, also in the title of the article. 
b) The part Results is very bad described. The obtained results are present in figures not as table as 
it was mentioned. The results of adhesion should be present as number of cells or percentage of 
cells that adhere to ECM proteins. In fact the table with the values of extinction and SEM should be 
much more informative. 
-Minor Essential Revisions 
Please check the English very carefully 
In many places the word extracellular matrix is used as one word. In Abstract: 
Line 12: “according to dilution 30000-70000 tumor cells were seeded” but in the Methods page5, line 
5: “50000 cells/well “ and finally page 5 line 16: OD showed a linear relationship between 1000 – 
50000” . So which value is correct? Page 2, line 14: “phospholipids were added in concentration 1.0/100ml” – 
Page 2, line22: “phospholipid concentrations of 0.5mg/ ml” or it should be 100 ml? 
Page 3, line 3: the cited references should be 1-4 Page 4, line: what does “cells from three passages “ mean?, may be it was third passage? 
Page 7, line 9: “ amount of PL 0.05mg /100ml led to a reduce extinction of 0.4; it is not true because 
the difference was from 0.58 to 0.4 
Italic for in vitro Please check very carefully the Reference list 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 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: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-33 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Phospholipids reduce gastric cancer cell adhesion to extracellularmatrix in vitro Title: 
 1  29 September 2004 Version: Date: 
 Gere S diZerega Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
1. Author's question new and well defined 
2. Methods appropriate 
3. Data sound and well controlled 
4.Manuscript appropriate 
5.Discussion and conclusions well balanced 
6. Title and abst convey what was found 
7. Well written 
Minor revisions requested: 
This is a well performed study with adequate experimental design to provide useful data. 
Concern arises over the interpretation of in vitro data extrapolated to in vivo results. Conclusion of 
abstract should be limited to the in vitro data presented. Data derived from cell lines may or may not be predictive of metastasis from primary cells. Matrices of collage IV, laminin, and fibronectin may 
not be predictive of peritoneal membrane nidation. 
Methods: Specific description of “neutral lipids” should be provided. 
Discussion: pg 10, last 5 lines: this data should be provided in this paper or the reference inserted in 
galley proofs 
Discussion: last sentence: please expand the last sentence (“independent on specific ECM…”) into 
detail sufficient to support claim or restate as an hypothesis. 
Legends: Please expand so that each legend can stand alone
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-33 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Phospholipids reduce gastric cancer cell adhesion to extracellularmatrix in vitro Title: 
 3  3 November 2004 Version: Date: 
 Anna Litynska Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
I have looked at revised manuscript and author's response, and my original 
criticisms have been answered.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-32 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Gastric Emptying is Slow in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Title: 
 1  28 October 2004 Version: Date: 
 Jochanan Naschitz Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General This study fills a gap in our knowledge on CFS. The authors are to be congratulated. The 
following points seserve emphasis: First, CFS in the study group might be more severe and of longer 
duration than in other studies. Hence, GI disturbances in this study group might be different than in 
CFS patients of lesser duration and severity of the disorder. Second, data on autonomic nervous system functions is not reported. It would interresting to correlate variables of GI functioning with 
variables of cardiovascular reactivity or other parameters of autonomic nervous functioning. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
none
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-31 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Seroprevalence of hepatitis C and associated risk factors among an urban population in Haiti Title: 
 1  24 August 2004 Version: Date: 
 Maria Regina Cardoso Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is an interesting paper which offers valuable information on HCV infection in Haiti 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
I have just few questions/suggestions to make: 
1)There was a mix-up at the Background section, with methods (end of first paragraph) and results (end of second paragraph) being presented. Thus, I would like to encourage the authors to review this section 
2) How was the sample size estimated? 
3) In the Results section, it would be helpfull to inform the number of subjects who had to be contacted in order to obtain the study sample. In other words, how many subjects refused to 
participate in the study? Were they different (age, socioeconomic condition, etc.) from those included 
in the study? 
4) The authors could present the 95% Confidence Interval for the prevalence of positive HCV antibodies 5) In the Discussion section, the authors could offer more information on the representativeness of 
their study sample. How is the access of the population of Cap-Haitien to health services? Is the 
study sample a very particular subgroup of the whole population? Is there any possibility of bias due to the number of refuses? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 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: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-31 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Seroprevalence of hepatitis C and associated risk factors among an urban population in Haiti Title: 
 2  13 October 2004 Version: Date: 
 Maria Regina Cardoso Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Formal statistical inference from the data presented may be limited due to problems of 
representativeness of the study sample. However, considering that the results sound and that the authors added reasonable explanations in the text advancing some limitations of the study to the readers, I believe the paper deserves 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) 
 Accept without revision 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: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-31 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Seroprevalence of hepatitis C and associated risk factors among an urban population in Haiti Title: 
 2  18 October 2004 Version: Date: 
 enea spada Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Some of my comments regarding the representativeness of the study population and the risk factors 
analysed remain valid. However, the authors cannot address these issues due to the lack of detailed 
information. Despite of some design flaws, I recommend this paper for publication because it makes 
an important contribution to the understanding of hepatitis C epidemiology in Haiti. Furthermore, the 
paper is worthy of note because it underlines the role of controversial and not fully defined risk 
factors for the acquisition of HCV infection, such as having multiple sexual partners and medical or surgical procedures, which undoubtedly deserve further studies to be assessed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-30 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 TGF beta-1 and PDGF AA override collagen type I inhibition of proliferation in human liver Title: 
connective tissue cells 
 3  4 November 2004 Version: Date: 
 Minoti Apte Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have adequately addressed issues raised in my original review. The article is now 
acceptable for publication. 
 Accept without revision What next?:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-29 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Elevated Serum Collagen type III in Splanchnic and Peripheral circulation of patients with Title: 
inflammatory bowel disease submitted to surgery 
 1  14 July 2004 Version: Date: 
 adolfo benages Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
The figure 1 is not necessary 
Which are the indications for the surgical treatment? 
 Accept after discretionary 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: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-29 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Elevated Serum Collagen type III in Splanchnic and Peripheral circulation of patients with Title: 
inflammatory bowel disease submitted to surgery 
 1  14 September 2004 Version: Date: 
 Carmelo Scarpignato Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
This is a straightforward paper evaluating serum collagen type III in splanchnic and peripheral 
circulation of IBD patients. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that the local collagen 
metabolism is increased in active IBD. 
The manuscript is well written. Data are clearly presented and discussed appropriately. 
I would only suggest the following changes: 
1) In the Collagen Metabolism section it should be specified whether the normal rages of PIIIP 
concentrations given do refer to peripheral or splanchnic blood. 
2) Although the number of patients was not enough to perform a statistical analysis, mean PIIIP data 
should be presented for mild, moderate and severe forms of the disease, at least for UC. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-28 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Hereditary risk factors in development of gastric cancer in young age group in a high-incidence Title: 
area for Helicobacter Pylori
 2  27 February 2004 Version: Date: 
 Iradj Sobhani Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
- Major Compulsory Revisions 
This is an interesting retrospective clinical study aiming to show that 
blood group O may be considered as a marker to predict risk for gastric 
cancer because found in 68% of cases vs 27% of controls. However several following points requires further investigation or clarification 
1- There is no clear to me why this study should be considered as 
"prospective" ? since no follow up has been done in individuals 
2- How did they perform matching of the trial; the procedure should be 
developed 
3- Why the sex ratio is =1 in the study group? Was it any selection of 
individuals? 
4- How authors verify information obtained from patients? Did they check 
diagnosis of cancer presumably declared for relatives? If yes please give details; if not how did they handle with mistakes 
5- Authors should describe gastric cancers in term of location, 
pathology description extension etc.. since they selected patients from files. 
6- More extensive description is needed to compare two populations. They 
should in a table show usual characteristics 
7- There is no clear which statistical procedure they've chosen to 
compare these populations. The paragraph is missing in methods 
8- Authors should focuse their discussion on their results rather than give 
summary of the literature : for intance how would result change if they did 
not match groups on gender? Because the sexe ratio of gastric cancer after 50 yeras old is 2m for 1 f 
- Minor Essential Revisions 1- They should match on geographic origin of patients 
2- Why did authors mention H; pylori in introduction? Have they checked 
any marker for this? 
3- Figures are of poor quality; please change 
4- Can authors give any information on prognosis of cancer in these groups? 
5- Introduction and discussion should be considerably shortened 
Statistical review 
------------------ 
- Yes 
because the main result is based on the comparison of two groups and methods are not shown 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
none
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-28 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Hereditary risk factors in development of gastric cancer in young age group in a high-incidence Title: 
area for Helicobacter Pylori
 2  8 March 2004 Version: Date: 
 Teresa A Brentnall Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors describe a case control study to look at the association of ABO blood type and the 
development of gastric cancer in young patients. There is interesting data, however much of it is not 
discussed in the Discussion section, nor is it expanded on in the Results section. The authors 
describe a cohort of young gastric cancer patients and discover that the cases are more likely to 
have first or second degree relative with gastric cancer, are more likely to have other malignancies in 
the family (particularly breast, lung, gyn, and hematologic malignancies), and are more likely to have 
Type O blood. 
Perhaps the least interesting finding is the blood group assessment in this study, however the entire 
disccusion is focused only on that finding. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
1. The entire paper, but particularly the abstract and the discussion need to be reviewed by someone 
who speaks English fluently. There are problems with punctuation, capitalization, syntax, and 
ommission of words. 
2. The authors should expand the data regarding the family history of the patients, particulary with 
regard to the number of family members with gastric or other cancers. 
3. Who are the control patients? The report mentions that 34% of them are dead. Why were control 
patients choosen to be over the age of 50, while the cases where under the age of 50? 
4. Helicobacter pylori is mentioned in the title, however there is no helicobacter information on any of 
the cases or controls. 
5. There is no description of the histology of the gastric cancers. This is a key piece of information 
because it appears that different syndromes may produce different cancer types (intestinal versus diffuse). 
6. The Introduction is too long and perhaps some of the information presented here would be better 
placed in the discussion. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 Introduction, reference 17 is the wrong reference for the statement cited. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-28 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Hereditary risk factors in development of gastric cancer in younger age group in a Iran Title: 
 4  30 June 2004 Version: Date: 
 Iradj Sobhani Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
I have still some basic methodological problem with this manuscript: Although authors addressed 
many of my questions, it is still unclear how many individuals have been finally interviewed and 
information from families were available for hwo many of subjects , if samples are similar in two groups; they have to mention this details to be sure informations from a sufficient number of individuals were available and there was no difference between two groups in term of missing 
information
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-28 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Hereditary risk factors in development of gastric cancer in younger age group in a Iran Title: 
 4  19 July 2004 Version: Date: 
 Teresa A Brentnall Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
The paper is markedly improved by the changes that the authors incorporated into the 
manuscript. 
I only have one minor revision suggestion. The authors should not start the beginning of a sentence with a number (for example, 24), but rather use a word.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-27 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 The diagnostic value of endoscopy and Helicobacter pylori tests for peptic ulcer patients in late Title: 
post-treatment setting 
 1  17 August 2004 Version: Date: 
 Francis Megraud Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
In this manuscript the authors highlight the interest in performing endoscopy and Helicobacter pylori tests in dyspeptic patients 5 years after H. pylori eradication attempts. It is interesting to note that among the 17 H. pylori negative patients four had erosions while there 
were two with erosions and 4 with ulcers among the 17 H. pylori positive patients indicating that it is 
worthwhile to perform endoscopy at this stage. 
- It would be interesting to know what the cause of the symptoms and endoscopic findings in the H. 
pylori negative group were. 
- It would also be nice to know more about the patients non-explored. Apparently 53 patients missed 
the 5 year follow-up. The reasons should be provided and among the remaining 81, only 34 were 
studied. Does this mean that none of the others had symptoms? - Page 4, with regard to the 13C-UBT (no italics), please indicate if a test meal was used and the 
time of specimen collection. 
- Page 5, last line, the cut-off for clarithromycin resistance according to NCCLS is ?1 mg/l. - A table showing the endoscopic findings according to the H. pylori status could be added. - The presence of atrophy and intestinal metaplasia in a small number of H. pylori negative cases 
should be interpreted as sequelae of this infection. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
- Page 4, 5 lines before the end; “13C-urea” - Page 7, line 10: “A poor concordance was found between…” - Page 7, 4 lines before the end: “histological tests, was H. pylori negative” 
- Page 8, line 5: “..intestinal metaplasia were rarely observed…” delete “with small frequency” line 6. 
- Page 8, lines 7 & 8: “Lymphoid follicles were more frequent…” 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-27 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 The diagnostic value of endoscopy and Helicobacter pylori tests for peptic ulcer patients in late Title: 
post-treatment setting 
 2  5 October 2004 Version: Date: 
 Deng-Chyang Wu Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
none
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-25 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Oxytocin and cholecystokinin secretion in women with colectomy. Title: 
 1  29 May 2004 Version: Date: 
 PAULUS S. WANG Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
1. The physiological role or significance of oxytocin in regulating GI function should be mentioned or 
discussed in the "Introduction" and/or "Discussion". 
2. The current evidence (Fig. 4) was not enough to support a decrease of metabolic clearance of 
CCK in colectomized women. The level of CCK in human plasma had to be saturated by infusion of CCK before measurement of metabolic clearance rate (MCR). 
3. Authors have to design an experiment (e.g. to use CCK receptor blockers) to confirm the source of 
oxytocin secretion (from brain or GI) following CCK challenge. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 poor quality of figures should be improved. (e.g. use different symbols between control and 
patients or between basal and peak in both Fig. 1 and Fig. 3, and make clear scales over X-axis in 
both Fig. 2 and Fig. 4; n value should be exposed in each figure.) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-25 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Oxytocin and cholecystokinin secretion in women with colectomy. Title: 
 1  9 July 2004 Version: Date: 
 Ad A Masclee Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Based on a previous intriguing finding the authors have studied oxytocin plasma concentrations in 
response to CCK infusion in colectomised and in healthy women. Basal and CCK stimulated plasma oxytocin levels were not different among the two groups( in contrast to the hypothesis). Plasma CCK levels after bolus infusion were higher in colectomised 
subjects, whicht the authors interprete as a reduced metabolic clearance of CCK. 
The research question posed by the authors is new and relevant. The methods ( hormone analyses) 
are well described and validated. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) My major concern relates to the CCK bolus infusion and plasma CCK levels. The observed differences in plasma CCK levels may result from factors not mentioned or discussed by the authors 
: 1) why was CCK administered as bolus instead of continous infusion ? Bouls infusion leads to high 
, unphysiological plasma ( tissue) levels. 2) plasma CCK levels in the early phase after CCK infusion 
are lacking, thus no data are available for CCK kinetics.3) the stimulus ( CCK) was not 
standardised, thus identical plasma CCK levels would have resulted perhaps in lower oxytocin levels 
in the patients? 
No evidence is provided that hyperCCKemia results from delayed CCK clearance ! T ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
Figure 1 and 3 could be replaced by a table ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 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: 
None
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-25 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 Oxytocin and cholecystokinin secretion in women with colectomy. Title: 
 2  12 August 2004 Version: Date: 
 Ad A Masclee Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The questions I raised have been adequatly answered. 
I would have preferred continuous instead of bolus injections of CCK. I understand that based on a previous study the authors have chosen otherwise.More important, the suggestion on decreased clearance of CCK has been changed. The discussion is now more in line with their findings.The 
paper deserves 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) 
 Accept without revision 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: 
none
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-4-26 (2004)

Reviewer's report 
 An Unusual Case of an Ulcerative Colitis Flare resulting in disseminated intravascular Title: 
coagulopathy and a bladder hematoma: A Case Report 
 1  19 July 2004 Version: Date: 
 Elias Kouroumalis Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
References on coagulation disorders of inflammatory bowel disease should be completed. There 
are some recent publications by Koutroubakis et al. that should be considered. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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: 
None