JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03523-1 (2024)

Title: The Diagnostic Value of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for Evaluation of
Tissue Oxygen Status in Rat Hepatoma Model
Version: 1 Date: 12 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract Apart from p-values numerical values should be also provided AS should be explained
Methods Authors should explained why they selected the particular size of tumors if not in
the methods section at least in introduction They also provide biobliographic reference that use
L11-3U  probe is adequate to measure circulation in rat liver, as well as polarography  Was
there an quantitative auto-tracking contrast quantification software used? Results Characteristics
of the two models selected that led authors to prefer them should be reported Was there any
difference in tumor oxygenation between tumor periphery and center?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03523-1 (2024)

Title: The Diagnostic Value of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for Evaluation of
Tissue Oxygen Status in Rat Hepatoma Model
Version: 2 Date: 15 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Because hypoxia was not recorded  the experimental model can verify that CEUS can measure
normal oxygenation and in such a condition there is a good correlation between CEUS
parameters and pO2 Thus conclusions should be accordingly adapted Methods Authors should
explain why they have selected tumor diameters of 10 and 15 mm which proved to be
insufficient to produce hypoxia An additional group with hypoxia would have been perfect
Afterall immunohistochemistry for hypoxia proved to be a useless additive
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03523-1 (2024)

Title: The Diagnostic Value of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for Evaluation of
Tissue Oxygen Status in Rat Hepatoma Model
Version: 3 Date: 01 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
i think authors have changed what can be corrected Several schedule drawbacks have been
included in study limitations Thus study is ready for publication
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03523-1 (2024)

Title: The Diagnostic Value of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for Evaluation of
Tissue Oxygen Status in Rat Hepatoma Model
Version: 3 Date: 03 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Amira A A Othman
Reviewer's report:
I want to extend my congratulations to all those involved in this work. All the required
amendments have already been made carefully and satisfactorily. I hope that the research will
be presented to science.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03514-2 (2024)

Title:  Sex-related Differences in Profiles and Clinical Outcomes of Inflammatory Bowel
Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 04 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the authors evaluated the effect of sex on disease
course and clinical outcome of IBD patients (both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis). They
detected certain sex related disparities in several outcomes. The findings are interesting for
gastroenterologists and/or other physicians involved in the treatment of IBD patients.
The manuscript is overall well-written. The materials and methods are clearly described, the
statistics are appropriate and the results are comprehensive. The discussion is focused with
sufficient comment of the results and the conclusions are based on these results.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03514-2 (2024)

Title:  Sex-related Differences in Profiles and Clinical Outcomes of Inflammatory Bowel
Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 06 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract Results on gender effect in separate analysis of CD and UC could be entered in the
abstract if possible Moreover in all disease related matters related to female gender it would be
better to declare those characteristics are more frequent in females. Methods Because gender
effect is not so obvious in children it would be better to exclude patients aged less than 18  Results
Authors should make a separate presentation of UC and CD especially in disease location and
behavior as the two entities are quite different
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03514-2 (2024)

Title:  Sex-related Differences in Profiles and Clinical Outcomes of Inflammatory Bowel
Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 06 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of sex on the inflammatory bowel
disease (IBD) course and clinical outcomes, showing that, while males have higher risks of early
death and indications for IBD-surgery, females experience more anxiety and depression.
Major Comments
1. The manuscript presents new, updated data on sex-based differences in IBD outcomes,
particularly with a focus on mortality, biologic treatment, and mental health outcomes. However,
much of the broader focus on sex differences in IBD has been explored in previous literature,
limiting the conceptual novelty. Like the study by Goodman et al. (Nat Rev Gastroenterol
Hepatol 2020;17:740-754.), the manuscript emphasizes the impact of sex differences on clinical
outcomes, particularly regarding surgery and quality of life.
2. Unlike other studies such as the one published in Xu L, et al. (Inflamm Bowel Dis
2022;28:1766-1775), the manuscript does not explore in depth the potential mechanisms of
sex differences, such as the role of sex hormones (e.g., estrogen and progesterone) in IBD
progression. Integrating this dimension would have strengthened the manuscript's discussion of
the biological basis for the observed sex differences.
3. The manuscript acknowledges significant heterogeneity in certain aspects like disease
characteristics, hospitalization rates, and biologics usage. While heterogeneity is expected in
systematic reviews, the methods used to address these variations could be expanded upon. More
subgroup analyses or adjustments for study-level factors (e.g., geographic location, disease
severity) would improve the generalizability of the findings, as seen in other studies that explore
sex-based differences across populations (e.g., Rasmussen NF, et al. Syst Rev 2024;13:164).
4. The authors conducted Egger’s regression tests and funnel plots to detect publication bias,
and they concluded that there was no significant bias for most outcomes. However, the funnel
plots showed some asymmetry in certain areas (e.g., depression), and while the regression test
results were non-significant, publication bias may still exist. The authors could strengthen this
section by using more robust methods like the “trim-and-fill” method to adjust for potential
publication bias.
5. The authors could provide more details on how they handled non-normal data. Reporting
sensitivity analyses based on the original non-parametric measures (median and IQR) could
serve as a robustness check.
6. Although the manuscript focuses on sex differences in IBD, it does not fully explore other
potential confounders, such as age, comorbidities, or socioeconomic status, which could also
influence outcomes like surgery, quality of life, or medication use. Including additional analyses
that control for potential confounders, either through stratified analyses or meta-regression,
would provide a deeper understanding of the sex differences observed.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03514-2 (2024)

Title:  Sex-related Differences in Profiles and Clinical Outcomes of Inflammatory Bowel
Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 07 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Amira A A Othman
Reviewer's report:
First of all
I want to congratulate the authors on their work. In this study, Salem et al reviewed the
recently published comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis describing the incidence
and prevalence of IBD globally in 44 population-based cohort studies. Herein, the primary
objective was to comprehensively review sex-based differences in IBD, including epidemiology,
pathogenesis, phenotypic differences, therapeutic response, and outcomes.
The authors tried to contribute to this field of research with new findings, nevertheless, there is
an observation for which sufficient justification must be obtained.
1. The English writing level is poor, and it is necessary to seek help from an English language
specialist to correct spelling and grammatical errors in the entire text.
2. Abbreviations must be fully written at the first appearance
3. The authors should consider indicating the locality of the studies from which the systematic
review and meta-analysis were performed.
4. The background subsection should include the aim of the study
5.  What is the type of study: a population-based study?
6. In method subsection:
- Should be reconstructed, you may use the following template:
“ The study identified population-based cohorts of patients with IBD for which incidence and
age data were available (17 distinct cohorts from  X (No.) regions of Europe, North America,
Australia, and New Zealand, ……..). We collected data through December 2016 on 95,605
incident cases of Crohn’s disease (CD) (42,831 male and 52,774 female) and 112,004 incident
cases of ulcerative colitis (UC) (61,672 male and 50,332 female). We pooled incidence rate
ratios of CD and UC for the combined cohort and compared differences according to sex using
random effects meta-analysis.
- It would help if you described the aim of your statistical analysis.
7. The resolution of all supplementary figures must be improved according to the journal
guidelines.
8. Metanalysis is better to enclose also:
• Sex-based differences in IBD epidemiology should include:
- IBD incidence.
-  IBD type and phenotype.
• Sex-based differences in IBD pathogenesis
• The risk of IBD associated with environmental exposures.
9. Limitations and strengths should be provided.
10. What are the novel findings of his study compared to previous reviews?
(doi: 10.1177/1756284820915043, doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.06.043)
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03514-2 (2024)

Title:  Sex-related Differences in Profiles and Clinical Outcomes of Inflammatory Bowel
Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 22 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract Data on presence of anxiety or depression should be better presented at the begining
of results As well as differences in disease location Results Could patients report the number of
biologics used? What they actually mean patients were receiving more biologics but apart from
adalimumab there was also no diffrence as reported for anti-TNFs
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03514-2 (2024)

Title:  Sex-related Differences in Profiles and Clinical Outcomes of Inflammatory Bowel
Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 24 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
The write up on sex related  Differences in Profiles and Clinical Outcomes of Inflammatory
Bowel Disease lacks clarity of information and  the focus on sex related differences  . It needs
major revision highlighting the  differences in sex related incidence of the disease and giving
possible explanation for such differences
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03514-2 (2024)

Title:  Sex-related Differences in Profiles and Clinical Outcomes of Inflammatory Bowel
Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 24 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Amira A A Othman
Reviewer's report:
I would like to extend my congratulations to all those involved in this work. All the required
amendments have already been made carefully and satisfactorily. I hope that the research will
be presented to science
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03514-2 (2024)

Title:  Sex-related Differences in Profiles and Clinical Outcomes of Inflammatory Bowel
Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 3 Date: 29 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
All changes have been applied thus study is ready for publication
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03514-2 (2024)

Title:  Sex-related Differences in Profiles and Clinical Outcomes of Inflammatory Bowel
Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 3 Date: 30 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
The reviewers' responses were positive; therefore, the manuscript can be accepted for
publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03514-2 (2024)

Title:  Sex-related Differences in Profiles and Clinical Outcomes of Inflammatory Bowel
Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 3 Date: 01 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
The changes made in the revised paper  as per our suggestions is acceptable to me . In the present
form , the article can be accepted for publication
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03517-z (2024)

Title: Impact of Tumor Type and Size on Macroscopic Tissue Core Retrieval in Endoscopic
Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy for Pancreatic Malignancies
Version: 0 Date: 25 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the article titled “Macroscopic Tissue Core Retrieval in Endoscopic
Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy for Pancreatic Malignancies” by Lai et al. The study is
well written and analysed in a coherent manner. I have the following comments to be made:
1. The aim of the study is to assess whether histology and size of the pancreatic solid masses
can influence MOSE results. Hence, the title of the study should reflect that. Kindly correct it.
2. Kindly rephrase and correct the statement in the abstract: “Interestingly, whether a sufficient
tissue core was obtained only influenced the adenocarcinoma diagnosis rate (93.3% vs. 60%,
p<0.001) and not the diagnosis rate of neuroendocrine tumours”
3. In the methods section, please provide a study flowchart (add in supplementary).
4. Please provide references of MOSE definition (sufficient as well as insufficient) in the section
of “defining success”.
5. Please number of cases who underwent either slow pull or wet suction, and whether suction
technique influences MOSE outcomes would be interesting to note. The RCT quoted by the
authors (Crino et al) concluded that wet suction was superior to slow pull technique in terms
of tissue integrity. I would suggest authors to perform this analysis and add a separate table in
main text or supplementary.
6. Kindly shift Table 2 to supplementary section as its irrelevant to this study outcome.
7. Interesting, the author’s center has used TopGain needle as well. I would suggest the authors
to perform a sub-group analysis comparing Acquire versus TopGain needle in terms of MOSE
adequacy and outcomes for size and tumor histology. It would be an interesting observation as
there is sparse literature on the outcomes of TopGain needle.
8. Discussion of “through the needle biopsy” is irrelevant to the study. Please modify the
discussion section accordingly.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03517-z (2024)

Title: Impact of Tumor Type and Size on Macroscopic Tissue Core Retrieval in Endoscopic
Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy for Pancreatic Malignancies
Version: 0 Date: 27 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Your work is fluid in reading and well-structured in the results.
In the conclusions you assert that the "macroscopic visible core" or more precisely a "sufficient
macroscopic tissue core" (>=4 mm) can positively impact on the histological diagnosis of
adenocarcinoma, especially when the lesion was smaller than 3 cm but not on neuroendocrine
tumor ones.
Furthermore, you hypothesize macroscopic and visible tissue core differs for fibrotic tissue
amount linked to the desmoplastic reaction typical of ductal adenocarcinoma as well as in the
size of the neoplasm.
Although the conclusions and hypotheses are shareable,  I have some doubts about their
transferability into clinical practice. My doubts can be summarized in the following points:
- The retrospective design of the work with the selection of PDAC and NET cases a posteriori;
in particular, as confirmed by you, of PDAC predominantly advanced in symptomatic patients
and on the other hand NET found incidentally with more probability of small lesions.
- the lack of tomographic and/or endoscopic-contrast-enhanced ultrasound techniques nor of
flow analysis capable of orienting towards a specific diagnosis.
- the lack of ROSE in a tertiary center in the differential diagnosis of neoplastic lesions, at least
for selected doubtful cases, is hardly acceptable.
I therefore ask the authors to report and analyze data of pre-biopsy evaluation studies (Tc scan/
US/MRI) useful for the presumptive diagnosis of the target lesions. I also ask to emphasize the
limits of the analysis presented in relation to the underlying selection bias.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03517-z (2024)

Title: Impact of Tumor Type and Size on Macroscopic Tissue Core Retrieval in Endoscopic
Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy for Pancreatic Malignancies
Version: 1 Date: 24 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors have answered all my queries and the manuscript looks significantly improved. I
congratulate them for this paper.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03517-z (2024)

Title: Impact of Tumor Type and Size on Macroscopic Tissue Core Retrieval in Endoscopic
Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy for Pancreatic Malignancies
Version: 1 Date: 02 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors have satisfied my review.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03512-4 (2024)

Title: Rhaponticin suppresses the stemness phenotype of gastric cancer stem-like cells CD133+/
CD166+ by inhibiting programmed death-ligand 1
Version: 2 Date: 26 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
# In Fig1, are the population of CD133+/CD166+ cells lower? Please add double stained data
of parent BGC-823 and SGC 7901 cells.
# In Fig4, Did Rhaponticin reduce CD133+/CD166+ cells? In addition, does PD-L1 knockdown
influence CD133+ and/or CD166+ expression? Please add further data and discussion.
#In Fig5, generally, nude mice are deficient in the thymus gland, so T cells are almost non-
existent. Please explain with data why CD4+ or CD8+ cells are present.
#Please add further data and discussion on the mechanism of action of Rhaponticin to reduce
PD-L1 expression.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03512-4 (2024)

Title: Rhaponticin suppresses the stemness phenotype of gastric cancer stem-like cells CD133+/
CD166+ by inhibiting programmed death-ligand 1
Version: 4 Date: 30 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
I reviewed the revised version of the manuscript by,Li Yulong et
al and I confirmed that all of my concerns have
been properly addressed and revised.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03512-4 (2024)

Title: Rhaponticin suppresses the stemness phenotype of gastric cancer stem-like cells CD133+/
CD166+ by inhibiting programmed death-ligand 1
Version: 4 Date: 04 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Abstract Numerical values could be presented in the results Methods section seems to be Ok
Results numerical values apart from diagrams and pictures should be provided about abandance
of CD133+-/CD166+- cells Moreover protein expression should be expressed in numerical
values if possible Even a non continuous parametric way would be acceptable Parametric
expression of any other qualitative data presented would be useful in a way that p-values would
prove statistical significance Data already presented in methods section should not be repeated
in results Numerical values if available permitted election of the most important DEGS should
be provided
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03512-4 (2024)

Title: Rhaponticin suppresses the stemness phenotype of gastric cancer stem-like cells CD133+/
CD166+ by inhibiting programmed death-ligand 1
Version: 4 Date: 04 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
After reviewing the responses, it is deemed that they are satisfactory, and the manuscript is
suitable for publication in its current form.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03512-4 (2024)

Title: Rhaponticin suppresses the stemness phenotype of gastric cancer stem-like cells CD133+/
CD166+ by inhibiting programmed death-ligand 1
Version: 5 Date: 29 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Concentration of rhaponticin used should be defined in the abstract and the text In the methods
section isolation using microbeads  should be also included there
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03512-4 (2024)

Title: Rhaponticin suppresses the stemness phenotype of gastric cancer stem-like cells CD133+/
CD166+ by inhibiting programmed death-ligand 1
Version: 5 Date: 29 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
After reviewing the responses, it is deemed that they are satisfactory, and the
manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03512-4 (2024)

Title: Rhaponticin suppresses the stemness phenotype of gastric cancer stem-like cells CD133+/
CD166+ by inhibiting programmed death-ligand 1
Version: 6 Date: 07 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
Abstract Numerical and p  values for the effect in xenographs could be presented Otherwise all
changes requested have been applied and the document can be accepted
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03511-5 (2024)

Title: Differential diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors versus leiomyomas by special
stains
Version: 6 Date: 11 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Tomoyuki Otani
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript compares the histochemical characteristics of GISTs and gastrointestinal
leiomyomas. The main findings of this study are that GISTs are PAS-negative whereas
leiomyomas are PAS-positive, and that GISTs stain blue on MT whereas leiomyomas stain red
on MT. These staining techniques are widely used in laboratories around the world, and one
would think that if such a striking difference existed, it would have been reported by now; but
we can be surprised. However, some parts of the manuscript make one wonder whether this
study really happened.
Major comments:
1. How were the materials used for this study retrieved? Biopsy? Endoscopic resection? Surgical
resection? The method section states “All biopsy specimens were obtained by endoscopic
forceps” at one part and “All biopsy specimens were surgically resected by ESD or EMR”
at another. The declarations section states “The experimental material was derived from
pathological biopsy tissues”. The microphotographs provided do not look like those of biopsy
specimens (too large tissues).
2. Introduction and Discussions sections have some important statements that are not
presented in Results: “This is consistent with our research, for example, we found many
peritoneal tubercles were GISTs” (page 2; if this is from authors’ previous work, provide the
reference). “the morbidity were 34.2% (39/114) and 65.8% (75/114) in our current research,
respectively” (page 6).
3. Somewhat relevant, many parts are ambiguous as to whether the findings are those of the
present study or previous ones, or a general remark. For example, the Result section begins:
“GISTs and GILs may occur anywhere in the digestive system, and the clinical symptoms
were diverse from each other, for instance, several patients may feel difficulty in swallowing,
hemorrhage of digestive tract, chest pain et al, some even have no symptoms of discomfort.”
Does this describe the findings of the present study or a general remark? There are other instances
of such ambiguity in this manuscript.
4. The declarations section states “the experiment was repeated three times”. What is the exact
meaning of this statement? Did the authors stain the same tumor three times with the same
staining method?
5. AB-PAS staining of GISTs and leiomyomas are shown in Figures 3 and 4. The difference
in coloring between these two sets of photos seems to be too subtle to support the statement
that “all of the GISTs cases were PAS negative (light purple), and almost all GILs were PAS
positive (rose red) (P <0.01).” If the authors are confident of this statement, they could provide
a quantitative analysis.
6. Two GIST tissues used for MT staining (Figures 3D and G) look too sclerotic (abundant
collagen deposition and atrophic tumor cells) to be representative of GISTs. More typical-
looking tumors/regions should be shown to support the conclusion of the study.
7. This reviewer does not understand Figure 5.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03518-y (2024)

Title: Correlation between PDGF-BB and M1-type macrophage in inflammatory bowel disease:
a case-control study
Version: 1 Date: 30 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract results reporting should define serum and colonic measurements  They should report
the levels of PDGF in all patients and not in a small subgroup Methods Why authors selected
a 12 week instead of 24 or 48 week time to perform colonoscopy as most guidelines suggest
in order to verify remission Were there any inclusion or exclusion criteria apart from the
underlined disease, such as age, presence of comorbidities, presence of neoplasia, pregnancy
and lactation? Authors report that they sample the same area after entering remission How thay
have accomplish this task because any marking might have influenced sampling? Definition of
how immunohistochemistry was read should be provided as well as about serum measurements
of cytokines Does any comparison has performed to the ajustent 'normal' mucosa?  Authors
should define clinical and demographic parameters recorded Why smoking habits and alcohol
consumption were excluded? Duration of IBD is useful to be reported Fecal calprotectin
numerical value instead of qualitative evaluation should be provided IBD activity measurement
should also be provideded using an accepted scale Statistics ANOVA is the appropriate statistical
method to campare 3 variables and not Mann-Whitney U test Results ROC curves is better to
be calculated between presence of various markers and the activity index It would be useful that
the authors might provide representative immunohistochemistry pictures
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03518-y (2024)

Title: Correlation between PDGF-BB and M1-type macrophage in inflammatory bowel disease:
a case-control study
Version: 1 Date: 25 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Patroklos Katafygiotis
Reviewer's report:
Very interesting work. I would like to point out some points that I think need to be changed.
In the Abstract in the results the plural in the word “colon” is not needed.
In the paragraph Sampling and preservation in the sentence "Patients with IBD in remission
who underwent colonoscopy obtained biopsy samples from the same sampling area" you should
clarify the meaning of "same sampling area"
Regarding Immunohistochemistry, reference should be made to antibodies and the way they
stain cells.
In the discussion there is the phrase "Due to the complex and unclear etiology of IBD, long-term
treatment outcomes are often poor." which is a generalisation and I think is not needed in the text.
Also on the same page there is the phrase “In healthy intestines” which I think should be written
differently. Then there is a reference to some ratio between M1/M2 without giving any data.
Spearman correlation analysis was followed by a t-test analysis?
You can see the above comments in the text in red.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03518-y (2024)

Title: Correlation between PDGF-BB and M1-type macrophage in inflammatory bowel disease:
a case-control study
Version: 1 Date: 29 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
This scientific paper provides information regarding the correlation between PDGF-BB, M1
macrophages and newly diagnosed IBD patients, by analyzing serum and colonic expression of
cytokines well-known to be involved in the etiopathology of these diseases. It was well written
and adequately executed, with the results showing indeed a connection between the studied
factors and the diseases’ course.
Having said that, however, there is still room for improvement.
Specifically, I believe the Discussion section needs to be revised thoroughly. In its current
state, it presents in too much detail the role of the studied factors in IBD, information that yes
is important, but which should be part of the Introduction section. In my opinion, it should
focus more on all the results that derived from the present study, starting each paragraph with
statements like “in the present study … was observed”, and analyze the clinical importance and
novelty they offer to the current literature, instead of giving a brief explanation of the tested
immunological cascades.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03518-y (2024)

Title: Correlation between PDGF-BB and M1-type macrophage in inflammatory bowel disease:
a case-control study
Version: 2 Date: 11 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
I think authors have applied all changes requested Thus the paper could be accepted
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03518-y (2024)

Title: Correlation between PDGF-BB and M1-type macrophage in inflammatory bowel disease:
a case-control study
Version: 2 Date: 12 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Patroklos Katafygiotis
Reviewer's report:
It is an interesting manuscript. Authors succeed to present their data in a clear way. Therefore,
I have no corrections to do.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03518-y (2024)

Title: Correlation between PDGF-BB and M1-type macrophage in inflammatory bowel disease:
a case-control study
Version: 2 Date: 13 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  George Pappas-Gogos
Reviewer's report:
This is a study regarding the inflammatory reaction in patients with IBD.
The molecules (presumed markers) used in the context are PDGF-BB and M1 macrophages.
The study would be well planned and executed, including various groups, including a control
group.
In my opinion, it could include the study of some TLRs, ROS or RNS markers in order to have
a more complete picture.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03520-4 (2024)

Title: The Association between Non- and Pro-Healthy Diet Indices and the Risk of Colorectal
Cancer: A Case-Control Study
Version: 0 Date: 30 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Introduction
Comment 1: Please add the following new reference concerning
Iranian statistics https://gco.iarc.who.int/media/globocan/factsheets/populations/364-iran-
islamic-republic-of-fact-sheet.pdf
Comment 2: Lines 74 and 79: When describing the studies, the type of the study is needed (cross-
sectional, case-control, etc).
Comment 3: please add same references about epidemiological and nutritional transition in Iran
as a study justification.
Methods
Comment 4: Have you done any sensitive analysis to confirm the results?
Comment 5: Please specify the reference category in the statistical analysis (lowest or highest
tertile)
Comment 6: Were the tertile categories based on the control distribution or on the entire included
population?
Discussion
Comment 7: The role of inflammation in the development of CRC must be considered.
Comment 8: The link between gut microbiota and inflammation should also be explored.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03520-4 (2024)

Title: The Association between Non- and Pro-Healthy Diet Indices and the Risk of Colorectal
Cancer: A Case-Control Study
Version: 0 Date: 01 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Because in the majority of patients colonic carcinoma derives as a result of the evolution of an
underlined polyp time frame of the study is important and should be defined In a rectrospective
study going back several years ago even more than a decade before is rather unreliable  the same
drawback is applicable in methods section Methods Inclusion and exclusio criteria should be
defined in detail (underlined comorbidities, bowel inflammation)  Also the definition of controls
is rather vague since diet can influence may diagnostic entities  Demographic and clinical data
recorded should be decribed in detail Numerical values belong to the results section and should
moved there How did authors secured that diet has not changed because of cancer existance
Results All significant risk factors after multivariated analysis should be presented in the text
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03520-4 (2024)

Title: The Association between Non- and Pro-Healthy Diet Indices and the Risk of Colorectal
Cancer: A Case-Control Study
Version: 1 Date: 17 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Overall, I think this paper has the quality necessary to be published, and the topic is relevant.
Nonetheless, I have several mostly small recommendations, and a few more critical ones.
- Methods section: Please clarify how the scores are assigned to the PHDI-10 and NHDI-14
indices. Could you explain the scoring system in more detail? Specifically, how are the scores
for the food groups calculated for each index, and how is the final score determined? The article
mentions that "the PHDI-10  ....is linked to the frequency of consuming 10 food groups", but it
is unclear how the frequency of consumption is converted into points. Could you provide more
information on how the frequency is scored for each food group in both indices?
- The term "matched-controls" could be used for "controls."
- It is unclear how the "vegetable and meat cooking methods" is a confounding factor. Can you
please clarify?
- A strength to be presented is the matched-control group, where variables such as age and sex
were matched with the cases.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03520-4 (2024)

Title: The Association between Non- and Pro-Healthy Diet Indices and the Risk of Colorectal
Cancer: A Case-Control Study
Version: 1 Date: 17 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Alejandro Oncina-Cánovas
Reviewer's report:
Good job! The article has improved significantly. However, some of the points I raised or
questions I asked remain unaddressed. I list them below with an extra point:
- If you don't have more details about the diagnosis, maybe yo can add an additional limitation
to address this concern.
- You didn't answer these questions:
Why you use these covariables for the adjusted model and not others? Please provide a
justification. Did you consider examining the association using these indices as continuous
variables? This would provide valuable insights.
New question:
- It would be preferable to focus on the results from more adjusted models (omit results from
unadjasted or crude models).
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03520-4 (2024)

Title: The Association between Non- and Pro-Healthy Diet Indices and the Risk of Colorectal
Cancer: A Case-Control Study
Version: 1 Date: 17 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Effect of risk factors in Ca bowel starts several year before diagnosis Moreover symptoms during
the symptomatic fase could lead in adaptation of nutricional habits Thus it is important to know
when questionnaire was given In addition several snapshots are advisable Abstract should define
when questionnaire was given Methods Controls should had had a colonoscopy performed to
exclude large adenomas usually faced as advance neoplasia in most studies At least one year
of follow-up could exclude cancer in controls  Authors should define if other exclusion criteria
were taken into consideration like underlined comorbidities or pregnancy How family history
was defined? How authors have overcame recalling biases about dietary habits several years ago
Statistics Study sample calculation should be provided
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03520-4 (2024)

Title: The Association between Non- and Pro-Healthy Diet Indices and the Risk of Colorectal
Cancer: A Case-Control Study
Version: 2 Date: 23 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Alejandro Oncina-Cánovas
Reviewer's report:
The authors have adequately addressed my comments. However, as they have included a
new analysis (using continuous indices), this should be described in the appropriate section
(Statistical Analysis). It would also be preferable to maintain consistency with the other results
presented in Table 2 by reporting only two decimal places for the OR and 95% CI. With nothing
further to add, I offer my congratulations.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03520-4 (2024)

Title: The Association between Non- and Pro-Healthy Diet Indices and the Risk of Colorectal
Cancer: A Case-Control Study
Version: 2 Date: 23 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
The main drawback of the study is the retrospective analysis Diet assess at the time of neoplasia
diagnosis is influenced by anorexia related to the underlined symptomatology Second phrase
of the abstract does not exactly mirror the findings Methods Conditions leading in anorexia
and consequently dietary adaptations should be excluded from controls Power of the study
calculation should be moved in results section
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03520-4 (2024)

Title: The Association between Non- and Pro-Healthy Diet Indices and the Risk of Colorectal
Cancer: A Case-Control Study
Version: 2 Date: 24 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors have adequately addressed all my previous comments and concerns. I have no
further suggestions or remarks. The manuscript is well-prepared for publication
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03520-4 (2024)

Title: The Association between Non- and Pro-Healthy Diet Indices and the Risk of Colorectal
Cancer: A Case-Control Study
Version: 3 Date: 30 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
I think authors have made sufficient changes and the study is ready for publication Thus I
congratulate the authors
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03502-6 (2024)

Title: Long-term Outcomes of Additional Surgery Versus Surveillance-Only Clinical
Decision for Early Colorectal Cancer Patients After Non-curative Endoscopic Resection: A
Meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 18 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
1. In the discussion section, the author mentioned “Li et al concluded that surveillance in patients
who receive non-curative ESD may be an alternative option for those with advanced age and
fewer high-risk factors for residual cancer or LN metastasis”, “the more preferred option for
these patients maybe additional surgery”. There are problems in the logical relationship between
these two paragraphs. The previous article concluded that only surveillance should be considered
for special groups such as the elderly, while the conclusion proposed by the author is for all
patients with early colorectal cancer who receive non-curable resection, this logic is confusing.
If the author wants to show that additional surgery should be performed all patients with early
colorectal cancer who receive non-curable resection, especially the elderly, he may consider
adding a subgroup analysis of the elderly.
2. There are some grammatical problems in the article, please revise it.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03502-6 (2024)

Title: Long-term Outcomes of Additional Surgery Versus Surveillance-Only Clinical
Decision for Early Colorectal Cancer Patients After Non-curative Endoscopic Resection: A
Meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 05 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
This study offers a thorough evaluation of the research on the subject of whether additional
surgery is necessary for colorectal cancer following endoscopic treatment. This study has some
innovative and clinical significance, but #some suggestions  should be noticed.
1. The authors do not clarify the criterion for include endoscopic therapy in their research.
Prognosis is also affected by criteria variation.
2. Furthermore, the authors did not explain in the text the reasons for integrating further surgical
treatments in the study, whether the postoperative patients adjuvant chemotherapy or not, or the
patient's immune status, all of which have a demonstrable influence on the patient's prognosis.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03502-6 (2024)

Title: Long-term Outcomes of Additional Surgery Versus Surveillance-Only Clinical
Decision for Early Colorectal Cancer Patients After Non-curative Endoscopic Resection: A
Meta-analysis
Version: 4 Date: 13 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
There are some grammatical problems in the article, please revise it.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03502-6 (2024)

Title: Long-term Outcomes of Additional Surgery Versus Surveillance-Only Clinical
Decision for Early Colorectal Cancer Patients After Non-curative Endoscopic Resection: A
Meta-analysis
Version: 4 Date: 16 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
This study provides an in-depth analysis of the current surgical topic of whether to do further
surgery after endoscopic therapy for colorectal cancer. This study has some innovative and
clinical significance, Despite several limitations, but some of the findings in this research can
still guide clinical practice.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03502-6 (2024)

Title: Long-term Outcomes of Additional Surgery Versus Surveillance-Only Clinical
Decision for Early Colorectal Cancer Patients After Non-curative Endoscopic Resection: A
Meta-analysis
Version: 4 Date: 19 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for opportunity to review the paper titled “Long-term outcomes of additional surgery
versus surveillance-only clinical decision for early colorectal cancer patients after non-curative
endoscopic resection: a meta-analysis”.
The document has been carefully researched and written. However, there are a few issues that
I would like to address:
1. The definition of non-curative endoscopic resection is not clear. Since definitions may vary
across studies, it should be clarified in the Methods section.
2. In Japanese studies, patients classified as having non-curative endoscopic resection according
to the JSCCR criteria and who did not undergo additional surgery may have serious
comorbidities. There is a survival bias in the group that did not receive additional bowel
resection, which complicates direct comparisons of overall survival rates between those who had
additional surgery and those under surveillance only. How does the author think about this issue?
3. In Japanese studies, patients classified as having non-curative resections according to the
JSCCR criteria who do not undergo additional surgery may present with serious comorbidities.
This fact introduces a survival-related bias in the comparison between the two groups, raising
concerns about the validity of comparing overall survival rates. I believe the author should
address this issue in the Discussion.
4. What does “ER+” in Table 1 refer to? Does it indicate endoscopic resection?
5. Literature 15, which is cited twice in the Discussion, presents a study with a small sample
size of 180 cases, and I believe it may not be suitable for comparison with the results of this
meta-analysis.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03502-6 (2024)

Title: Long-term Outcomes of Additional Surgery Versus Surveillance-Only Clinical
Decision for Early Colorectal Cancer Patients After Non-curative Endoscopic Resection: A
Meta-analysis
Version: 5 Date: 24 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Authors appropriately replied to the comments from reviewers.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03502-6 (2024)

Title: Long-term Outcomes of Additional Surgery Versus Surveillance-Only Clinical
Decision for Early Colorectal Cancer Patients After Non-curative Endoscopic Resection: A
Meta-analysis
Version: 5 Date: 29 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
I have read the revised paper and find it to be very clear and well-balanced. However, I would
like to request three minor revisions:
1. The definition of non-healing resection in JSSCR lacks citation of relevant literature. I
recommend adding this information in the Methods section (2.2 Literature Selection Criteria
and Outcome Measures).
2. In Table 1, please add footnotes for terms such as ER: Endoscopic Resection.
3. Please verify the numbering of the references, as it appears to be incorrect due to revisions in
the main text. The references are numbered up to 37, but the main text only refers to 34.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03502-6 (2024)

Title: Long-term Outcomes of Additional Surgery Versus Surveillance-Only Clinical
Decision for Early Colorectal Cancer Patients After Non-curative Endoscopic Resection: A
Meta-analysis
Version: 7 Date: 30 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
I have confirmed that the modifications were made appropriately. I appreciate the author’s effort.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03497-0 (2024)

Title: Impact of Ahmadi Continuing Nursing Model on self-care ability, stoma complications
and quality of life of colostomy patients
Version: 1 Date: 12 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for this paper to review, Interesting and important result - Impact of Ahmadi Continuing
Nursing Model on self-care ability, stoma complications and quality of life of colostomy
patients.
I have some suggestions to you, to gain a better understanding of your study.
Please consider each detail.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03497-0 (2024)

Title: Impact of Ahmadi Continuing Nursing Model on self-care ability, stoma complications
and quality of life of colostomy patients
Version: 1 Date: 20 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper on a significant yet underexplored topic.
I commend your efforts in contributing to this field. However, I have some suggestions for
improvement:
1. Language Clarity: Some passages were difficult to understand, impacting the overall
comprehension. I recommend having the manuscript professionally edited for language clarity.
2. Methodological Details: The methodological section needs further elaboration. Specifically:
o On what premises has the number of participants been decided? Have you done any power
analysis?
o Presenting participant characteristics in a tabular format would improve readability and
facilitate comparison.
o Detailed information about the instruments used, including their validity, reliability, and
translation process, is crucial for readers to evaluate the study’s robustness.
3. Statistical Analysis: It is not explained whether the instruments were analyzed at the subscale
level or as a whole. Providing this information would enhance the reading and understanding
of the result.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03497-0 (2024)

Title: Impact of Ahmadi Continuing Nursing Model on self-care ability, stoma complications
and quality of life of colostomy patients
Version: 1 Date: 23 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting article.  Here are a few suggestions on how to make the article stronger.
1. it would be helpful if you defined what you mean by "self-care".  There is wide range of
definitions and much controversy in recent literature on what is meant by the term "self-care".
For your purposes getting into that debate is not necessary, but defining what you mean by the
term is important.
2.  throughout the document you write descriptors of the data like "much shorter time",
"much higher score", and "sharply lower".  These are all qualitative descriptors of quantifiable
measures.  It would strengthen your article substantially if you provided the quantitative
measures and left the qualitative descriptors for the reader to surmise themselves.  As written,
you are relying on the reader to go to the tables and figure out the data themselves.  Readers
are generally lazy and want the authors to do that work for them.  Go back and put the actual
data in the text of the article.  For example instead of saying "The observation group had much
higher life quality scores than the control", say that the the observation group score was "x"
higher than the control group ...
3. you should also complete a final and thorough proof read as there are a number of typos and
misspellings that are a distraction for the reader.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03497-0 (2024)

Title: Impact of Ahmadi Continuing Nursing Model on self-care ability, stoma complications
and quality of life of colostomy patients
Version: 2 Date: 07 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors.
Thanks for reading this  revised revision of your manuscript, the response from earlier have
been presented clear according to suggestions, I have some suggestions and considerations to
provide to enhance your paper.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03497-0 (2024)

Title: Impact of Ahmadi Continuing Nursing Model on self-care ability, stoma complications
and quality of life of colostomy patients
Version: 3 Date: 30 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your revisions, which have significantly improved the manuscript. I only have
two questions left:
• Page 6 row 167. It is written that the plan was to improve the patient’s psychology, should it
be physiological state? In row 172 it is written “physiological field”.
• The phases in ACMN are described using different terms. On page 6, line 151, the phases are
labelled as 'orientation, sensitivity, control, and evaluation.' However, on page 6, line 154, the
Orientation phase is referred to as 'Direction of nursing,' and on page 12, line 331, the Evaluation
phase is called 'Assessed.' I suggest using consistent terminology throughout the manuscript.