JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03648-x (2025)

Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery
Version: 2 Date: 09 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, please address the following points below
-The background addresses challenges in developing countries, such as doctor-patient
communication, process management, and informatization. However, these challenges are not
fully elaborated upon. It would be beneficial to expand on these issues and explain how the
model addresses them, particularly in healthcare settings that may lack the same resources or
infrastructure found in developed countries.
-While the pre-admission management model is introduced, the specific components and
processes involved in the "optimized" model are not thoroughly explained. For instance, how are
virtual beds managed, and what specific tools (such as IT systems and communication platforms)
are used to coordinate this process? Providing further details on how the virtual and physical
components interact would help readers comprehend the practical aspects of implementation.
-Although the inclusion and exclusion criteria are presented, additional information on the
cluster sampling methodology would be helpful. For example, how were the two patient groups
(ordinary inpatients and pre-inpatients) selected? Were they matched based on key demographic
and clinical factors such as age, comorbidities, and type of surgery? Matching is essential to
ensure that any observed differences in outcomes are due to the pre-admission process rather
than confounding variables.
-While the statistical methods utilized are appropriate, it would be useful to mention how
confounding variables were controlled for in the analysis. For example, if there were significant
age differences between the groups, did the analysis account for this when comparing outcomes?
A more detailed explanation of the methods used to control for potential confounders would
strengthen the study’s conclusions.
-Although age and underlying conditions are cited as factors affecting hospitalization outcomes,
the study does not provide an in-depth analysis of other potential confounders, such as
socioeconomic status, hospital-specific factors (e.g., bed capacity), or surgical complications. A
more robust multivariate analysis that includes these factors could yield a more comprehensive
understanding of the impact of the pre-admission management model.
-What specific strategies were implemented to support elderly patients in this process, and how
might these strategies be optimized? Moreover, what specific reasons led to the decision of
26 patients to opt out, and how can the model be improved to accommodate those who face
challenges with technology or communication?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03712-6 (2025)

Title: Persistence of Anemia in patients with Celiac Disease despite a Gluten Free Diet: A
retrospective study
Version: 4 Date: 24 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Juha Taavela
Reviewer's report:
Here are my comments regarding the manuscript by Valvano et al. entitled "Persistence of
Anemia in Celiac Disease patients despite a Gluten Free Diet: A retrospective study "
The paper presents a clear question and has nice findings overall. Somw I have some comments:
1. you present that celiac disease serology was done but I do not find what the values where
in follow-up?
2. Some of the references are not good, suggestions:
prevalence numbers are somewhere between 1.6 to 2.4 and you have nice new data from Italy
and other large european studies, use these:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1590865822008714
and
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/apt.17803
In large population analyses the anemia, iron and folate are correlated to the activity
parameters and should be mentioned, comment according to your findings the following: https://
www.cghjournal.org/article/S1542-3565(12)01156-1/fulltext
anemia in pediatric celiac disease:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1097/MPG.0000000000001221
anemia persists in adults:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.13548
3. Figures are poorly explained and not self-explananatory, please elaborate and remove
unnecessary abbrevations. X and y axles are not explained.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03712-6 (2025)

Title: Persistence of Anemia in patients with Celiac Disease despite a Gluten Free Diet: A
retrospective study
Version: 4 Date: 26 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
I should first thank for inviting me as potential reviewer to read and comment on paper entitled
‘’Persistence of Anemia in Celiac Disease patients despite a Gluten Free Diet: A retrospective
study’’.
In the current study, the authors aimed to evaluate the prevalence of anemia in both adult and
pediatric CD patients at the diagnosis and during a long period of GFD.
The main title accurately reflects the major topic and content of the study.
The abstract summarizes and reflects the work described in the manuscript. Also, the abstract
presents the significant points related to the background, objectives, materials and methods,
results and conclusions.
The materials and methods sufficiently described for the results and conclusions that are
presented in the preceding sections. The study type and design were defined in the section of
the materials and methods. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are well defined. Figures and tables
are sufficient and well-organized. Ethics Committee approval was received. So, the section
materials and methods is adequate.
The statistical methods used are appropriate.
The section of the discussion is well organized. The conclusions are drawn appropriately
supported by the literature. The manuscript adequately describes the background, present
status and significance of the study. The manuscript interprets the findings adequately and
appropriately, highlighting the key points clearly.
I think that it will contribute to the literature. I have some minor criticisms.
- The manuscript appropriately cites the important and authoritative references but does not cite
the recent published articles in the Introduction part of the manuscript. If the recent published
article about celiac disease for example ‘’ Celiac disease in children: A review of the literature.
World J Clin Pediatr. 2021 Jul 9;10(4):53-71’’ and ‘’Clinical evaluation of children with
celiac disease: a single-center experience. Arch Clin Gastroenterol 2020; 6: 26-30’’ and ‘’ The
frequency of celiac disease in children with chronic constipation. Kuwait Med J 2021; 53:
383-387’’ are cited, the manuscript would be better.
- Also, the authors do not cite the recent published articles in the Discussion part of the
manuscript at the following sentence. If the recent published article about celiac disease and
anemia for example ‘’ ‘’Clinical evaluation of children with celiac disease: a single-center
experience. Arch Clin Gastroenterol 2020; 6: 26-30’’ are cited, the manuscript would be better.
At that manuscript, the prevalence of anemia was found 19.8%
‘’Among the latter, anemia is the most common, and its prevalence is reported from 12% to 69%
in patients with a new CD diagnosis[32,33]’’
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03712-6 (2025)

Title: Persistence of Anemia in patients with Celiac Disease despite a Gluten Free Diet: A
retrospective study
Version: 5 Date: 28 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Juha Taavela
Reviewer's report:
The authors have  reviewed and answered my comments appropriately, no further comments.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03712-6 (2025)

Title: Persistence of Anemia in patients with Celiac Disease despite a Gluten Free Diet: A
retrospective study
Version: 5 Date: 28 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
The authors did appropriate response to the comments. I have only one suggestion for correction
to one reference 7.
''Yasin S. Clinical evaluation of children with celiac disease... ''
It would be ''Sahin Y. Clinical evaluation of children with celiac disease... ''
Best regards,
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03724-2 (2025)

Title: Comparison of short-term efficacy of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with modified
side overlap anastomosis and laparoscopic total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y anastomosis
Version: 2 Date: 26 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript compared the laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG) with modified side
overlap anastomosis and laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) with Roux-en-Y anastomosis
for upper gastric adenocarcinoma. It is an interesting technique that intends to reduce the
postoperative GERD after proximal gastrectomy. The comments are listed as follows:
1, Please check the manuscript to avoid some language errors. For example, line 5-6:The
clinicopathological data of 262 patients who underwent LPG or LTG for upper gastric
adenocarcinoma from January 2016 to December 2022 were collected. missing LTG.  Table 3,
wrong placement of  Digestive tract reconstruction duration (min) and Total surgery duration
(min)
2, Though Propensity Score Matching could significantly decrease the bias, the number of the
patients included in this study was too small to draw an solid conclusion. And the method of
PMS should be further elaborated.
3, The author used GERD scale scores and gastroscopy to evaluate the post-op GERD.  Though
they are very useful for the diagnosis of GERD, 24h pH test remains the golden standard for
GERD diagnosis. BTW, what is the reason for the LAB esophagitis after LTG? What about the
PPI usage after surgery? which score system did you use? GerdQ? RDQ?
4, For the nutritional evaluation, Though NRS2002 is good. Anemia, multivitamin
supplementation and other items should be added. And it is better to include the score for quality
of life evaluation such as SF-36.
5, Though your figures were well drawn. I would suggest to put a video or real surgical
screenshot in the manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03724-2 (2025)

Title: Comparison of short-term efficacy of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with modified
side overlap anastomosis and laparoscopic total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y anastomosis
Version: 3 Date: 09 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
All comments were well reflected and revised.
I decided acceptance on this manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03724-2 (2025)

Title: Comparison of short-term efficacy of laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with modified
side overlap anastomosis and laparoscopic total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y anastomosis
Version: 3 Date: 10 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for your revision of the manuscript. With exception of language, I have nothing to
comment. I suggest you check and correct the English writing before publication. Some language
mistakes can still be found in the manuscipt.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03705-5 (2025)

Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune-
mediated renal diseases
Version: 1 Date: 23 Mar 2024
Reviewer:  Kamran Rostami
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting study well written, conducted by Francesco De Luca et al that quantify the
risk of developing immune-mediated renal diseases (IMRDs) in coeliac patients.
I would like to thank the authors as this study would be a great addition to the current literature
emphasising the protective and preventive  role of gluten free diet.
The authors used the  data from the Swedish national patient register. The association
was assessed retrospectively  before or after coeliac disease diagnosis. The study suggest
unrecognized CD patients had a higher risk to develop  IMRDs and gluten free diet as we
know is protective as the risk of IMRDs was reduced post diagnosis.  Another interesting
finding of this study was increased IMRDs prevalence with age. This finding may suggest
that unrecognised CD with long-term gluten exposure is significant risk factors for developing
IMRDs and other autoimmune disorders. Alternatively and most likely explanation would be
genuine predisposition for autoimmune conditions in CD.  It might be difficult to estimate
if gluten free diet can be more protective and preventive in those older patients who were
promptly diagnosed and treated for CD? I acknowledge this was one of the limitation of the
study, but still the authors may discuss briefly some possible explanation for their age related
risk stratification like what they mentioned in Background (We also expected to find that longer
duration of persistent exposure to gluten increases the risk of developing IMRDs) The current
literature suggest the prevalence of Autoimmune Disorders rises with the age in non-coeliac
relatives of CD patients as they share similar  genetic susceptibility in association with, similar
environmental triggering factors.
Minor comments
Background line 79 page 4 the hypothesis may need to be moved to discussion alongside the
rest: We also expected to find that longer duration of persistent exposure to gluten increases the
risk of developing IMRDs
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03705-5 (2025)

Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune-
mediated renal diseases
Version: 2 Date: 28 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Carlo Catassi
Reviewer's report:
I think that this is an interesting and original piece of work, that has been much improved after
the revision performed on the basis of the appropriate comments of referees #1 and #2. I think
that the english form of this manuscript still requires some attention and changes.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03705-5 (2025)

Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune-
mediated renal diseases
Version: 2 Date: 06 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer's report:
I thank the authors for their answers. The revised manuscript has been modified quite a a lot,
and it has also improved. I still have some comments concerning the new version:
Whole manuscript:
Please re-check the grammar (for instance on rows 50, 66, 73-77).
Please use certain words in the same way throughout the text (celiac disease, gluten-free diet etc).
Re-check the correct use of abbreviations (for instance on rows 199&208 etc).
Abstract:
In the section of results; when presenting/comparing the different risks, could you mention also
the comparing group (reference individuals)?
How the results of this study may increase the incentive for implementation of large-scale
screening programs for CD?
Introduction:
At least the rows 90-97 should be moved to the section of Methods.
Table 1:
Abbreviations (ICD, IMRD) should be explained.
Results:
I kindly suggest presenting the results of risks using HRs, probably not CIs. For instance, on the
row 153, an increased risk would be over three-fold.
Figure 1:
I recommend changing the word “ALL_IMRD”.
Discussion:
In my opinion, no need to refer to tables in the discussion section.
Do the authors have any explanations for the finding that the risk was increased for nephrotic
syndrome, systemic lupus erythematosus, tubulointerstitial nephritis, and unspecific nephritis
and nephropathy following the CD diagnosis? Please consider having a discussion about it in
the text.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03705-5 (2025)

Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune-
mediated renal diseases
Version: 2 Date: 15 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
I should first thank for inviting me as potential reviewer to read and comment on paper entitled
‘Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune-
mediated renal diseases’’.
In the current study, the authors aimed to identify any significant variation of the risk of renal
autoimmune disorders in the CD population.
The main title accurately reflects the major topic and content of the study.
The abstract summarizes and reflects the work described in the manuscript. Also, the abstract
presents the significant points related to the background, objectives, materials and methods,
results and conclusions.
The materials and methods sufficiently described for the results and conclusions that are
presented in the preceding sections. The study type and design were defined in the section of
the materials and methods. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are well defined. Figures and tables
are sufficient and well-organized. Ethics Committee approval was received. So, the section
materials and methods is adequate.
The statistical methods used are appropriate.
The section of the discussion is well organized. The conclusions are drawn appropriately
supported by the literature. The manuscript adequately describes the background, present
status and significance of the study. The manuscript interprets the findings adequately and
appropriately, highlighting the key points clearly.
I think that it will contribute to the literature. I have some minor criticisms.
- The manuscript appropriately cites the important and authoritative references but does not cite
the recent published articles in the background section of the manuscript. If the recent published
article about celiac disease for example ‘’ Celiac disease in children: A review of the literature.
World J Clin Pediatr. 2021 Jul 9;10(4):53-71’’ are cited, the manuscript would be better.
- Has there been a comparison in terms of IMRD risk between celiac patients who adhere to the
diet and those who do not? If so, should this be stated?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03705-5 (2025)

Title: Unraveling the role of early coeliac disease diagnosis in the risk of developing immune-
mediated renal diseases
Version: 3 Date: 08 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript has been improved and the authors have implemented the suggested
changes appropriately.  I kindly suggest that the authors re-evaluate the grammatical correctness,
particularly with regard to the use of abbreviations.  I have no further comments regarding the
manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03721-5 (2025)

Title: Operation Sequence of Bidirectional Endoscopy with Topical Anesthesia Affected
Colonoscopy Performance: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Version: 1 Date: 14 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
The responses are satisfactory.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03721-5 (2025)

Title: Operation Sequence of Bidirectional Endoscopy with Topical Anesthesia Affected
Colonoscopy Performance: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Version: 1 Date: 17 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Yu-Tse Chiu
Reviewer's report:
The authors have adequately addressed the issues raised in the previous review, resulting in
a well-written manuscript. Regarding the validation of the AI system, while it is unfortunate
that no large-scale trials currently support its reliability, certification by relevant authorities
still provides a certain level of quality assurance. However, although the authors clarified the
rationale for the discrepancy between the target sample size and the actual recruitment number
in their point-by-point response, this explanation was not included in the manuscript. This
omission could potentially confuse readers, particularly since the sample size calculation section
immediately precedes the results section. The manuscript would be further improved if the
authors included this clarification. Otherwise, I believe no further modifications are necessary.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03701-9 (2025)

Title: T1/T2 mapping as a non-invasive method for evaluating liver fibrosis based on
correlation of biomarkers: a preclinical study
Version: 3 Date: 23 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you to the authors for their contributions in exploring the subject matter. I would like to
express my appreciation for the authors interesting project.
Overall, the article presents valuable findings. It requires minor revisions to address the concerns
before it can be considered for publication.
1. This is a scientific article, and the choice of words is crucial as each word carries significant
meaning. Please explain why the phrases “insufficient accuracy” and “urgent need” were used
in the first sentence of the abstract.
2. The term “liver-related serum biomarkers” covers a wide range of biomarkers. Focusing only
on IL-1, IL-6, and TNF-# to argue that liver-related serum biomarkers have limited accuracy is
too narrow and biased. Please consider revising this sentence to reflect a broader perspective.
3. In the “Imaging analysis” section, some sentences require references. For example, the
sentence “T1 mapping was conducted using the Messroghli equation” needs a corresponding
citation.
4. The Spearman correlation coefficient (#) between HYP content and fibrosis stages is exactly
the same as the # between T1 values and HYP content (0.914). I recommend double-checking
this finding to confirm the exact similarity. Additionally, please ensure the sentences about the
Spearman correlation coefficients between T1 values and fibrosis stages are consistent and unify
the redolent sentences.
5. In the legend of Figure 5, please clarify that the P-values shown in the figure represent the
differences between T1 and T2. Also, direct readers to Table 3 for the corresponding p-values
of each AUROC.
6. As shown in Table 3, the highest AUROC for T1 mapping corresponds to discriminating
between F0-2 and F3-4, which is the key distinction in diagnosing advanced liver fibrosis. Please
highlight this finding more prominently and discuss its significance in the text.
7. In additional file, Table S1, n in 13*n (number of echoes) for TE in T2 mapping and its range
should be clearly defined by the authors to ensure reproducibility, transparency, and accurate
interpretation of the results. States that the echo times were chosen to optimize sampling of the
T2 decay curve. Providing a detailed explanation of how the echo times were calculated and
justified will strengthen the methodology.
8. Again, in Additional File, Table S1, please clarify why the number of slices for T1 and T2
mapping differs. Additionally, could you explain how the exact position of the single T1 slice
was chosen during the MRI scans?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03701-9 (2025)

Title: T1/T2 mapping as a non-invasive method for evaluating liver fibrosis based on
correlation of biomarkers: a preclinical study
Version: 4 Date: 14 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
The responses are satisfactory.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03701-9 (2025)

Title: T1/T2 mapping as a non-invasive method for evaluating liver fibrosis based on
correlation of biomarkers: a preclinical study
Version: 4 Date: 17 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for addressing the comments so thoroughly in your revised manuscript. The changes
and clarifications you have made have improved your work. I am pleased to inform you that I
have no further comments.
Reviewer
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03531-1 (2025)

Title: Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma: a
single center experience in Jordan
Version: 1 Date: 26 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for presenting this manuscript work to BMC Gastroentrology.
The manuscript is a reasonable presentation of Colorectal  prevalence in a Middle East country.
1- Abstract Comments: There is no mention of the results of association analysis of factors and
polyps.
2- Results : There is a need to organize presenting the results under several subheadings .I would
need the author to comment about the design of the study whether using a control arm with
patients who had a complete colonoscopy and matched to the cohort , this well improve the
robustness of the study .
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03531-1 (2025)

Title: Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma: a
single center experience in Jordan
Version: 3 Date: 24 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript was improved a lot after the comments of the colleagues from the first review
round.  The are lot of limitations of the study, which was mentioned, however the study is
important in the context of Jordan.
Here are several minor points showed be addressed:
1. Mean BMI of 46 seems to be Unlogical, can't be most of the patients with severe obesity in
the cohort. Please recheck it. Maybe you have few outsiders in the cohort that make this high
number.
2. In table 1, p-values were written as 0.000, better to write <0.001
3. Results sections, for better flow, the multivariate analysis should be the last part presented in
the results section and not the polyp characteristics.
4. Conclusions of the manuscript: the conclusion of the manuscript is nice, but not related the
study's findings. The authors need to write a conclusion in the context of the study findings.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03531-1 (2025)

Title: Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma: a
single center experience in Jordan
Version: 3 Date: 25 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors
In your paper You evaluated the epidemiology and clinical characteristics of colorectal polyps
to formulate an appropriate screening program.
Following my specific comments;
1) The aim of the paper is very clear.
2) The topic addressed is consistent with current literature.
3) The bibliography is in line with the topic of the article.
4) Although this article can provide useful guidance for clinical practice, a critical issue should
be addressed:
a) A correlation with the definition of adenoma detection rate
b) A reference to the possible an adenoma detection rate redefination relatively to the Jordan
population
Formulate an appropriate screening program a difficult reality to define. There are good
suggestions in the article on how to formulate an adequate screening program.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03718-0 (2025)

Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty,
Anxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination
Version: 2 Date: 23 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
I am unsure if this is a first submission or revision; the files included are confusing.
Major Concerns:
1. Study Design and Generalizability: The manuscript employs a retrospective cohort design,
which inherently limits the ability to draw causal conclusions. The authors should consider
discussing these limitations in greater depth and addressing how this design impacts the strength
of their findings. The lack of randomization may introduce selection bias.
2. Sample Limitations: The study focuses on patients from a single hospital, limiting
generalizability. The authors should discuss how these results might differ in a more diverse,
multi-site sample.
3. Statistical Analysis: The description of the statistical analysis is relatively brief. The authors
should provide more details regarding the statistical tests employed and justify their choices.
Specifically, mentioning controlling for confounding variables would help address concerns
related to the study's observational nature.
4. Intervention Details: More information is needed on the content and development of the
simulated animated video. Who created the content, and how was its effectiveness initially
validated? This will help assess the intervention’s quality and reproducibility.
5. Outcome Reporting: The results section reports statistically significant findings but needs a
more practical interpretation. The authors should discuss the clinical significance of the observed
differences in MUIS, HAM, and PSQI scores. For instance, is reducing anxiety or uncertainty
meaningful enough to influence procedural outcomes or patient compliance?
Minor Issues:
1. Language and Grammar: Occasional grammatical inconsistencies may hinder clarity.
Consider a thorough language edit to improve readability.
2. Ethical Considerations: The manuscript states that informed consent was waived due to the
use of de-identified data. While this complies with ethical standards, a stronger justification for
the waiver would enhance transparency, particularly regarding patient autonomy.
Recommendations for Authors:
a) Address the study design's limitations and clearly articulate how they affect the interpretation
of the results.
b) Expand on the statistical analysis methods and ensure sufficient detail is given about the tools
and adjustments used.
c) Provide additional information on the animated video intervention's development, validation,
and content.
d) Consider reformatting some sections for clarity and incorporating visual aids.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03718-0 (2025)

Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty,
Anxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination
Version: 3 Date: 04 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Responses are satisfactory .
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03718-0 (2025)

Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty,
Anxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination
Version: 3 Date: 30 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Maria Piskorz
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting study that presents a practical and educational approach for patients
undergoing endoscopic procedures. By utilizing animated video education, the study explores
an innovative method to enhance patient understanding, reduce anxiety, and improve overall
experience with the procedure. I have suggested some changes to improve your manuscript. I
hope you find them useful.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03718-0 (2025)

Title: Impact of Simulated Animated Video Education on Patients’ Disease Uncertainty,
Anxiety, and Sleep Quality in Digestive Endoscopy Examination
Version: 4 Date: 14 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
The responses are satisfactory.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03700-w (2025)

Title: The impact of pancreatic duct stent placement on the clinically relevant postoperative
pancreatic fistula rate for high-risk anastomoses: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 07 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Sushila Kumar Pattanaik
Reviewer's report:
Authors have done a good job of systematically reviewing and synthesising the available data
with appropriate statistical methods on a relevant issue.
Please make few  corrections of inadvertent errors.
1. In the Abstract section, full form of CR-POPF may be mentioned at its first appearance in
text. At the end of the sentence, "...for at least one high-risk factor (p = 0.234)", you can add "out
of two factors selected" for more clarity at this stage. You may omit if it crosses the word limit.
2.  Heterogeneity classification based on Higgin's I2 is to be discouraged, in my view. Because
it is not an absolute variance, but a proportion as you have mentioned correctly.
3. In the Supplementary Appendix 1: Introduction is to be located in Section 2 instead of Section
1.
4. Can we revise the serial no of references from 9 to 13 as follows: 10 to 9, 13 to 10, 9 to 11,
11 to 12, and 12 to 13, and cite accordingly.
5. In Tables 1 and 2: Spellings of representation, duodenum, and spacing between some words
may be corrected.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03700-w (2025)

Title: The impact of pancreatic duct stent placement on the clinically relevant postoperative
pancreatic fistula rate for high-risk anastomoses: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 17 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Jahnvi Dhar
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the article by Dai et al titled “The impact of pancreatic duct
stent placement on the clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula rate for high-risk
anastomoses: A systematic review and meta-analysis” and congratulate them for this study.
Six studies were analyzed for the same with no difference in POPF rates overall. The study has
been well conducted, analyzed and reported in the manuscript. Moreover, the SRMA has been
registered with PROSPERO as per guidelines.
I have following comments for the manuscript:
1. Please provide a sub-group analysis using the studies classified as low risk of bias (5 RCTs).
2. If there individual data of POPF rates for the type of resection techniques, I would suggest
the authors to provide that data, if feasible.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03700-w (2025)

Title: The impact of pancreatic duct stent placement on the clinically relevant postoperative
pancreatic fistula rate for high-risk anastomoses: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 01 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Jahnvi Dhar
Reviewer's report:
The authors have answered all my queries. i congratulate them for their manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03700-w (2025)

Title: The impact of pancreatic duct stent placement on the clinically relevant postoperative
pancreatic fistula rate for high-risk anastomoses: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 03 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Sushila Kumar Pattanaik
Reviewer's report:
Response is satisfactory.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03720-6 (2025)

Title: Prevalent Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk in Patients with Hepatic Cirrhosis: A Systematic
Review and Meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 08 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
This study included 21 studies through extensive database searches and systematically analyzed
the risk of osteoporosis and fractures in patients with cirrhosis. The results showed that patients
with cirrhosis have a higher risk of osteoporosis and fractures, suggesting the importance of
risk management and disease screening for patients with cirrhosis in the future. This study has
a reasonable design, clear logic, and appropriate analysis of relevant data, and has high clinical
significance.
However, this study still has the following problems to be solved:
1. The first two paragraphs of the background introduction should introduce osteoporosis and
cirrhosis separately. First, briefly introduce the characteristics of the two diseases, then explain
the potential relationship between them, and finally explain that the current research on this
relationship is still insufficient, thus leading to the necessity of this study.
2. Meta-analyses need to be excluded from the exclusion criteria.
3. Normally, patients with cirrhosis who have a higher average age should have an increased
risk of osteoporosis. Still, the opposite conclusion was obtained in this study#Meta-regression
revealed that studies with a higher mean age (p= 0.04) (Supplementary file 1: Figure S2) and
a higher prevalence of males (p= 0.03) (Supplementary file 1: Figure S3) had reduced odds of
osteoporosis in cirrhotic patients compared to controls.  Study design was found not to be a
possible source of heterogeneity (p>0.05).#. How does the author explain this difference?
4. Table 2 is not standardized and should be drawn in accordance with the standards of the three-
line table.
5. When conducting risk analysis in this study, several results showed excessive heterogeneity.
After removing individual studies, the heterogeneity was significantly reduced. Therefore, the
authors should focus on explaining in the discussion why the excluded studies can explain the
source of heterogeneity. For example, the study by Gonzalez-Calvin, Chen, Zheng et al.?
6. The authors could conduct subgroup analysis based on country (Western, Central Asia),
economic development level (developed, developing), and ethnicity, which would further enrich
the content of this study.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03720-6 (2025)

Title: Prevalent Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk in Patients with Hepatic Cirrhosis: A Systematic
Review and Meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 15 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting study showing that cirrhotic patients have an increased risk of osteoporosis
and fractures. However, it needs a clear definition of the research question and methodological
clarifications.
1 - The authors claim to have demonstrated an increased risk of osteoporosis. Does this mean
a higher prevalence or incidence of osteoporosis? Please note that if you want to evaluate
incidence, you only need to evaluate data from longitudinal studies. If you want to evaluate
prevalence data, it is possible to include other observational studies (cross-sectional and case-
control).
2 - The authors claim to have found a higher incidence of fractures in patients with cirrhosis.
However, non-longitudinal studies were included in this analysis, including Chen 1996 (cross-
sectional) and Zhang 2020 (case-control). These studies should be removed from the analysis.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03702-8 (2025)

Title: Risk of stroke in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and
meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 02 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dr. Luo et al. investigated the association between stroke and IBD using a meta-analysis
methodology. The study was well conducted but exhibited high heterogeneity across all
analyses. The potential reasons for this heterogeneity should be addressed in either the Results or
Discussion section. Possible explanations could include differences in patient enrollment criteria
or variations in diagnostic criteria.
I do not recommend this study to be published unless the authors provide a well-explained
explanation of this heterogeneity.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03710-8 (2025)

Title: Inflammatory Biomarker Correlations and Prognosis in High-risk Gastrointestinal
Stromal Tumor Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 25 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Tsunehiko Maruyama
Reviewer's report:
This article reports on the clinical usefulness of NLR in predicting the prognosis of patients with
high-risk GIST. I have a few questions.
1. Is it acceptable to use the median value as the cut-off value for NLR, PLR, SII and PNI? In
many other reports, analyses are carried out using various cut-off values. If you change the cut-
off value, is there significant difference in the multivariate analysis?
2. There are not many cases of imatinib being administered to high-risk patients, but is there a
problem with the level of medical care?
3. What kind of treatment strategy would you use for a high-risk GIST patient who has been
judged to have a poor prognosis by NLR?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03710-8 (2025)

Title: Inflammatory Biomarker Correlations and Prognosis in High-risk Gastrointestinal
Stromal Tumor Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis
Version: 4 Date: 27 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Tsunehiko Maruyama
Reviewer's report:
The authors changed the method for determining the cut-off value from the median to using
the ROC curve, and reported preoperative PNI and postoperative imatinib administration as
independent prognostic factors.
It is not a new finding that preoperative PNI is a prognostic factor in various cancers, but it is
worth evaluating that this study only included high-risk GIST cases.
Therefore, it is necessary to describe in detail the criteria used to select cases that received
postoperative imatinib and those that did not.
Preoperative PNI is said to reflect inflammatory conditions rather than just the patient's
nutritional status. This point should be mentioned in the discussion.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03710-8 (2025)

Title: Inflammatory Biomarker Correlations and Prognosis in High-risk Gastrointestinal
Stromal Tumor Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis
Version: 5 Date: 19 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Tsunehiko Maruyama
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your sincere response to my inquiry.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03675-8 (2025)

Title: Investigation of Subpopulations in Crohn Inflammatory bowel disease Patients
Version: 3 Date: 09 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, please address the following points below
-While the methodology mentions that the study includes treatment as a covariate, it would
benefit from more detail on the specific characteristics of the patient population. For example,
how were patients selected for this study? What were the baseline characteristics (age, sex,
disease duration, comorbidities) of the patients, and were these factors adjusted for in the
analysis? More information on the patient demographics and inclusion criteria would help
readers assess the generalizability of the findings.
-The concept of "mixture components" is central to the study, yet it could be explained
more clearly in the text. While it is stated that two subpopulations were identified, the
specific characteristics of these subpopulations (e.g., differences in disease severity, response
to treatment, etc.) are not fully explored. A deeper interpretation of what the two components
represent in terms of clinical outcomes would help make the results more meaningful. How do
these components differ in terms of patient behavior or clinical response?
-The finding that treatment was not significant in explaining the subpopulations is intriguing but
underexplained. Why was treatment not significant in either component? It would be helpful to
explore this result more thoroughly, particularly considering that treatment is often expected to
have a measurable effect in IBD patients. Are there other variables or treatment-related factors
that might better explain this lack of significance?
While the use of statistical models is appropriate, the presentation of results could be more
detailed. For example, when discussing the Poisson regression models (Equations 3* and 4*),
it would be helpful to include p-values or confidence intervals for the regression coefficients.
-This would allow readers to better assess the strength of the effects observed. Additionally,
the explanation of the deviance values and the significance of the change in deviance between
the single and two-component models is useful but could be expanded to better highlight the
statistical significance and practical implications of these results.
-There is no mention of model validation or checking for model assumptions, such as
overdispersion or residual analysis. While the finite mixture model is appropriate, it would be
useful to provide more evidence that the model fits well to the data (e.g., through residual plots
or diagnostic checks). Did the authors test the model’s goodness of fit, and if so, how did the
model perform?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03675-8 (2025)

Title: Investigation of Subpopulations in Crohn Inflammatory bowel disease Patients
Version: 4 Date: 16 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Amira A A Othman
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed the reviewers' comments satisfactorily, with many of the suggested
revisions being incorporated effectively into the revised manuscript. while the authors have
effectively addressed most of the reviewers' comments, there are a few areas where further
clarification or additional emphasis could improve the manuscript:
1. A more explicit mention of the rationale for finite mixture models in the introduction.
2. Further explanation of the clinical implications of the results, particularly regarding ibdsc0
and treatment effects.
3. A final review for any lingering grammatical or formatting issues.
These minor adjustments would help strengthen the manuscript and ensure that it aligns fully
with the reviewers' expectations.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03675-8 (2025)

Title: Investigation of Subpopulations in Crohn Inflammatory bowel disease Patients
Version: 5 Date: 22 Jan 2025
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/s12876-025-03668-7 (2025)

Title: Machine Learning for Temporary Stoma After Intestinal Resection in Surgical Decision-
Making of Crohn's Disease
Version: 0 Date: 29 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors report on the development of a predictive nomogram model for temporary stoma
formation after intestinal resection in Crohn's disease. The topic is interesting and quite relevant
as management strategy can vary significantly in this situation. The study is well designed and
reported. The limitations (retrospective nature, single center data) are acknowledged by the
authors; case number on the other hand is impressive.
Minor issues:
1. What was the basis of the decision between primary anastomosis vs temporary stoma
formation?
2. Incusion of lenght of follow-up period would be advisable.
3. Are there any data about postoperative BMI (and BMI change) of those underwent primary
anastomosis formation?
4. How much do the results of preoperative imaging studies and the patient's surgical history
influence the need for stoma creation?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03668-7 (2025)

Title: Machine Learning for Temporary Stoma After Intestinal Resection in Surgical Decision-
Making of Crohn's Disease
Version: 1 Date: 13 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors present a manuscript about A Predictive Nomogram
Model for Temporary Stoma After Intestinal Resection in Surgical Decision-Making of Crohn's
Disease. The analysis is very promising and the data are well presented. Crohn’s disease remains
a main topic in general surgery. The overall impression is that the manuscript sounds well. It
is technically written. It provides important considerations about when to perform a temporary
stoma after intestinal resection.
It is as manuscript that gives reasonable help about the decision when to perform a temporary
stoma after intestinal resection. It sounds well and the data interpretation is conducted
scientifically. It contributes greatly in the field of IBD disease specially when it needs of surgical
intervention. The results should be widely used in routine decision making.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-025-03668-7 (2025)

Title: Machine Learning for Temporary Stoma After Intestinal Resection in Surgical Decision-
Making of Crohn's Disease
Version: 2 Date: 29 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: yes, the authors responded adequately to each issue raised from
the previous reviews making adequately the changes in the manuscript. the revised manuscript
seems now ready for publication.