JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03570-8 (2024)

Title: Fatigue, pain and faecal incontinence in adult Inflammatory Bowel Disease patients and
the unmet need: a national cross-sectional survey
Version: 2 Date: 02 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract Numerical and p values in multivariated analysis should be presented Methods Did
a campagn preceeded posting questionnaires? What about minority inhabitants in NorthWest?
Were they excluded? Were treating physicians ( both GPs and specialists) involved in this
survey? Authors should mention that the survey represents a 7 day snapshot Was disease activity
or severity taken into consideration ?  Which depression and anxiety score was taken into
consideration since both of them could be affected by the disease? When mental illness was
diagnosed to be considered as preceeding IBD ? Which mental illnesses have been included?
Was dementia an exclusion criterion?  Results How many questionnaires were actualy sented
out from the 12500 initially allocated? Ones received were 8486 plus 5% with missing data or
refused to take part in the study it makes 8910. Because there is a male predominance in IBD
patients and the population of the study is predominantly female ( possibly because female tend
to respond more frequently in quality of life studies, did authors proceed in any adaptation?
Analysis in relation to disease activity and severity is missing Is it possible to be performed?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03570-8 (2024)

Title: Fatigue, pain and faecal incontinence in adult Inflammatory Bowel Disease patients and
the unmet need: a national cross-sectional survey
Version: 3 Date: 19 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract Fecal calprotectin is included in this data base Thus it could be used as a measurement
of disease activity UC and CD patients might be better to be analyzed together and separately in
subanalysis Those two points should be also addressed in methods section Methods scales used
for depression, anxiety and other symptoms recorded in the database should be reported
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03570-8 (2024)

Title: Fatigue, pain and faecal incontinence in adult Inflammatory Bowel Disease patients and
the unmet need: a national cross-sectional survey
Version: 3 Date: 25 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/s12876-024-03570-8 (2024)

Title: Fatigue, pain and faecal incontinence in adult Inflammatory Bowel Disease patients and
the unmet need: a national cross-sectional survey
Version: 3 Date: 26 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors kindly addressed all reviewer comments and implemented appropriate revisions
when necessary.  I have no additional comments or concerns.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03570-8 (2024)

Title: Fatigue, pain and faecal incontinence in adult Inflammatory Bowel Disease patients and
the unmet need: a national cross-sectional survey
Version: 4 Date: 28 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
I think that all my comments have been answered by authors Thus the study is ready for
publication and it could be accepted
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03574-4 (2024)

Title: Outcomes of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) in HIV patients
Version: 1 Date: 01 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Because the majority of patients undergoing PEG placement have an underlined neurological
disease multivariated analysis should be definitively needed unless the two groups have been
previously homogenised Those results should be presented from the introduction Also frequency
of infections ( trauma, aspiration pneumonia etc) during the follow-up period should be also
presented Methods Data recorded should be presented in detail Was chemoprophylaxis given
and was it the same in the two patient groups? Because difference in bleeding episodes have
been recorded between the two groups, para,eters affecting bleeding tendency and clotting
mechanisms should be recorded Can authors calculate expected survival before PEG placement
taking into consideration Charlson Comorbidity Index? In how many patients with expected
survival less than 6 months PEG was placed and why has it been opted instead of an NG tube?
Statistics Multivariated analysis should be performed Results Indication for PEG placement
should be described Main causes of death should be described
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03574-4 (2024)

Title: Outcomes of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) in HIV patients
Version: 1 Date: 02 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Sushila Kumar Pattanaik
Reviewer's report:
Good learning value. Nicely discussed. A minor revision and grammatical corrections will make
the manuscript more informative.
1. Abstract: Line 36- 'PEG placement carrier complication of bleeding and infection.' may be
changed to 'PEG placement carries complications like bleeding and infection.'
Lines 44, 45- 'Our study was comprised of the 639 PEG placed on 461 patients, from which 85
patients (n = 18%) with HIV positive.' may be replaced by 'Our study comprised 639 patients
with PEG tubes placed, out of which HIV status was known for 461 patients, from which 85
patients (18%) were HIV positive.' I think you mean so.
2. Results: Lines 118, 120- please replace 'both group' by 'both groups'
3. Conclusion: Further study on similar age study groups is required comparing between HIV
related mortality  and PEG related mortality in HIV patients to substantiate the contribution of
PEG to the mortality in HIV patients. Although this aspect has been discussed under discussion
section, this can be added in the conclusion section as a limitation of your study.
4. What do the values indicate in Table 3, column 2? Are they Odds ratio (95% CI) or any other
data? Please elaborate to make it clear to the readers.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03574-4 (2024)

Title: Outcomes of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) in HIV patients
Version: 3 Date: 01 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Sushila Kumar Pattanaik
Reviewer's report:
Now, the manuscript is improved.
The materials and methods should be reproducible. Please add 'case control study' after
'observational' in the study design, and define the patients in the two arms to be compared, before
going for statistical analysis.
How could you assume that elevated INR is not clinically significant, when you mention it to
be statistically significant? May use multivariate analysis data. Please clarify.
In line 222:  Please replace 'systemic review' by 'systematic review'.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03539-7 (2024)

Title: Efficiency of laparoscopic retroperitoneal pancreatic necrosectomy for treating infected
pancreatic necrosis with duodenal fistula: A single-center retrospective cohort study
Version: 0 Date: 03 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript "Efficacy of laparoscopic retroperitoneale pancreayic necrosectomy for treating
duodenal fistula in patients with infected pancreatic necrosis: A single-center retrospective
cohort study" interestingly approaches a difficult and relevant disease, whose treatment is
complex and multidisciplinary.
The topic is, as previously said, interesting and the paper could be clinically relevant, but presents
major issues that make the study difficult to understand and should be modified:
1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are confused and repeated in the "methods" section, making
it difficult for the reader to understand the final cohort. Description of the step up approach in
the "methods" section is unnecessary, since the patients in the considered cohort all underwent
surgical intervention.
2. The diagnosis of duodenal fistula is confused. At page 6 there is a distinction between
preoperative suspicion (1- yellow digestive fluid or white nutritional fluid in the abdominal
drainage) and two addictional methods (2-endoscopic examination, 3- radiology with
gastric/duodenal contrast), consequentialy considered as postoperative: while endoscopic and
radiological examination can give an objective diagnosis and can distinguish between duodenal
or other gastrointestinal fistulas, the first method is very subjective and should not be considered.
Moreover, since the paper aims to evaluate laparoscopic necrosectomy in the treatment of
infected pancreatic necrosis with duodenal fistula, the presence or absence of duodenal fistula
should be assesed before or during surgery. As a consequence, patients with post-surgical
duodenal fistula should be excluded.
3. The description of propensity score match analysis should be inserted in "statistical analysis"
and not repeated at page 9.
4. The title does not exactly match the content of the paper, since the aim of the present research
is to treat pancreatic necrosis in patients with concurrent duodenal fistula (page 4), and should
be modified.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03539-7 (2024)

Title: Efficiency of laparoscopic retroperitoneal pancreatic necrosectomy for treating infected
pancreatic necrosis with duodenal fistula: A single-center retrospective cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 14 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors assessed the use of laparoscopic retroperitoneal pancreatic necrosectomy for
treating infected pancreatic necrosis with duodenal fistula in a s retrospective cohort study. The
manuscript is well written and the previous reviewers concerns were addressed appropriately .
However, in its current from the manuscript still has severe flaws that preclude publication:
1.  The authors mention  irrigation through the drains placed. The rationale for this  should be
explained and literature cited that supports it.
2. The authors should state if  the duodenal fistula treated specifically or just via necrosecomy.
3. The authors state different causes for the fistula. Hoe were these identified? How was the
presumed cause proven?
4. The authors state that 47.6% of fistula were identified in intraoperatively and not prior
to surgery. However the control group concludes patients that were not treated by surgery.
Therefore, the authors cannot be sure whether fistula were present in the control group and just
not detected due to no surgery being performed. Therefore, both the study as well as the control
group should only consist of patients that underwent surgery.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03539-7 (2024)

Title: Efficiency of laparoscopic retroperitoneal pancreatic necrosectomy for treating infected
pancreatic necrosis with duodenal fistula: A single-center retrospective cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 22 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
After thoroughly reviewing the authors' responses, I am confident that the manuscript is suitable
for acceptance and publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03539-7 (2024)

Title: Efficiency of laparoscopic retroperitoneal pancreatic necrosectomy for treating infected
pancreatic necrosis with duodenal fistula: A single-center retrospective cohort study
Version: 2 Date: 30 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Ioannis Maroulis
Reviewer's report:
I would like to congratulate the authors on their fascinating work regarding this interesting
report entitled “Efficiency of laparoscopic retroperitoneal pancreatic necrosectomy for treating
infected pancreatic necrosis with duodenal fistula: A single-center retrospective cohort study”.
The manuscript is well-written and the incorporated figures and tables make the study easy to
follow.
I strongly recommend acceptance for publication of the paper after minor revision:
1) I would suggest a brief discussion on new biomarkers on inflammatory postoperative
complications and the role of Butyrylcholinesterase (BChE) enzyme.
According to the literature, BChE has been proved a marker for the risk of developing SSI and
septic complications in patients undergoing colorectal surgery.
Add this information and consider citing the recently published article:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39229253/
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03539-7 (2024)

Title: Efficiency of laparoscopic retroperitoneal pancreatic necrosectomy for treating infected
pancreatic necrosis with duodenal fistula: A single-center retrospective cohort study
Version: 2 Date: 09 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
Significant improvement has been made in the paper. This reviewer still finds the aim of the
study not completely clear and suggests to write a sentence to explain the purpose of the research:
as a consequence, the conclusions part should be modified, giving more relevance to the primary
aim. If the primary aim is to analyse the efficacy of LRPN in necrotising pancreatitis with
duodenal fistulas, then the conclusions should focus on this topic.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03539-7 (2024)

Title: Efficiency of laparoscopic retroperitoneal pancreatic necrosectomy for treating infected
pancreatic necrosis with duodenal fistula: A single-center retrospective cohort study
Version: 3 Date: 18 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
This reviewer agrees with acceptance of the manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03539-7 (2024)

Title: Efficiency of laparoscopic retroperitoneal pancreatic necrosectomy for treating infected
pancreatic necrosis with duodenal fistula: A single-center retrospective cohort study
Version: 3 Date: 22 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
The authors have provided satisfactory responses, and I recommend that the manuscript be
accepted for publication.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03563-7 (2024)

Title: Temporal trends in disability adjusted life year and mortality for colorectal cancer
attributable to a high red meat diet in China from 1990 to 2021: an analysis of the Global Burden
of Disease Study 2021
Version: 1 Date: 13 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abbreviations should be explained on their first appearance in the text Authors should adopt
GBD data donot permit to evaluate increase in red meat consumption but only the percentage of
the country population consuming red meat Thus they should find a way to bridge the distance
Moreover they should compare  woman position in Chinease society and future projection
Morbidity and mortality projections should take into consideration future improvements in
health services Finally they should take into consideration that Ca bowel spends at least 10-15
years to develop from a small polyp to a full blown carcinoma Thus they can safely project
current status and get results in 15 years when current cicumstances will end up influencing
Ca bowel demographics Methods Authors should explain known factors in the equations they
provide ( hat a, b are stanging for) Distance between China's meat consumption and the mean of
industrialized countries, especially countries with similar cultural background should be taken
into consideration A projection to country's consumption 15 years ago might be closer to disease
pathophysiology  Mortality  and morbidity trends would be more obvious if compared with cases
not attributed in red meat and a ratio would be calculated
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03563-7 (2024)

Title: Temporal trends in disability adjusted life year and mortality for colorectal cancer
attributable to a high red meat diet in China from 1990 to 2021: an analysis of the Global Burden
of Disease Study 2021
Version: 1 Date: 14 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the work from Leiuet al, quite an interesting study,
here are minor comments
1. Author might consider discuss and analyze subgroup of early-onset colorectal cancer in Asia-
Pacific region including in China
suggested article include
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37644698/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35116113/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30694865/
2. It would be highly beneficial if the author included the proportion of colorectal cancer in
relation to other gastrointestinal cancers, so readers might benefit from understanding how huge
the impact of CRC, suggested study including
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39242191/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32247694/
3. Generally, GBD have the “data rating quality,” which shows how robust the data it is in that
country from 0-5, I think it could be highly beneficial for the author to add this information in
the supplementary material so readers, particularly policymakers, can make a decision on the
policy for CRC and read meat consumption accurately
4.  The author mentioned the sociodemographic index, my question is, which country is in which
category?
5. I think the burden from red meat is interesting, yet the author need to mention that these risk
factors could be confounded by other risk factors, such as metabolic risk rather than red meat
alone, smoking, or alcohol
Suggested reading included but not limited to
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34579050/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35131406/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35000418/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38942169/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38808961/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25486405/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38029839/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38428708/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35333295/
6. Readers might benefit from understanding the GBD methodology, and the author might
consider include in supplementary material.
7. The difference between GBD and another cancer database should be included.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37750191/
8. How reliable is red meat consumption data? How the GBD extract these needed to be
mentioned. How much red mead consumption is defined?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03563-7 (2024)

Title: Temporal trends in disability adjusted life year and mortality for colorectal cancer
attributable to a high red meat diet in China from 1990 to 2021: an analysis of the Global Burden
of Disease Study 2021
Version: 1 Date: 14 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
I would like to thank the authors for their valuable work on the article titled "Temporal trends
in disability adjusted life year and mortality for colorectal cancer attributable to a high red meat
diet in China from 1990 to 2021: an analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021." This
paper addresses an important public health issue with significant implications for dietary and
cancer prevention strategies and the following issues should be addressed:
To improve the introduction’s coherence, I recommend enhancing the flow of ideas by ensuring
smoother transitions between key concepts. The introduction would benefit from a clearer
presentation of how red meat consumption relates to colorectal cancer burden in China,
framed within the context of global dietary trends and public health concerns. Including more
background on the relationship between dietary risks and colorectal cancer, and why this issue
is particularly relevant to China during the period studied (1990–2021), would strengthen
the relevance of the study. Additionally, highlighting existing gaps in the literature regarding
temporal trends in red meat-attributable disease burdens will help set the stage for your research
question.
The discussion section could be enhanced by incorporating findings from the suggested papers
(doi: 10.34172/ija.2023.e5; doi: 10.34172/ija.2023.e16) that explore how cancer burdens differ
across various age groups, particularly in older adults. These references will add depth to your
analysis, especially when discussing how aging populations in China may be affecting colorectal
cancer trends. Given that colorectal cancer incidence often rises with age, elaborating on age-
specific cancer trends will provide a clearer picture of how demographic shifts could influence
future disease burden and healthcare needs in China.
For the discussion on red meat-attributable disease burden, it would be beneficial to include
comparisons of global and regional trends. Specifically, highlighting how China's red meat
consumption and its association with colorectal cancer compare with other regions could provide
broader context. The paper would benefit from reviewing studies or reports that analyse the
effects of public health policies or dietary interventions aimed at reducing red meat consumption
and their potential impact on colorectal cancer rates. This discussion could help frame your
findings within the larger global discourse on dietary risks and cancer prevention strategies.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03563-7 (2024)

Title: Temporal trends in disability adjusted life year and mortality for colorectal cancer
attributable to a high red meat diet in China from 1990 to 2021: an analysis of the Global Burden
of Disease Study 2021
Version: 2 Date: 28 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Author revised all of the comment by reviewers.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03563-7 (2024)

Title: Temporal trends in disability adjusted life year and mortality for colorectal cancer
attributable to a high red meat diet in China from 1990 to 2021: an analysis of the Global Burden
of Disease Study 2021
Version: 2 Date: 07 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Yi-Chuan Yu
Reviewer's report:
I enjoy reading this manuscript with a few minor suggestions.
1. Line 50: please provide proper statistics on why CRCs in China are mostly diet-related risk
factors. How about improper/insufficient colonoscopy procedures?
2. Line 152: is there a particular reason to set the significance level to 0.054?
3. Have the authors checked the assumptions of linear regression?
4. In general, most studies on similar topics include red meat and processed meat. The study
will be more comprehensive if the authors can include processed meat as an additional interest
as well.
5. Line 523-528 presented generic statements and are necessary to be included.
6. Table 1, Please re-format some of the tables so the numbers are easier to follow. Each cell
in the table should have only 1 line of numbers, not multiple. Please keep all decimal places
consistent in one table. For example, if the authors wanted to use 4 decimal places, please do
so with all cells in the table.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03563-7 (2024)

Title: Temporal trends in disability adjusted life year and mortality for colorectal cancer
attributable to a high red meat diet in China from 1990 to 2021: an analysis of the Global Burden
of Disease Study 2021
Version: 2 Date: 09 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Authors should explain why they have selected to use data until 2021 although we are in the end
of 2024 There has been recorded a 10 year gap between men and women in the prevalence of
polyps tending to be eliminated after the age of 70-75 Had authors recorded a similar difference
Otherwise I think that the document is almost ready for publication
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03563-7 (2024)

Title: Temporal trends in disability adjusted life year and mortality for colorectal cancer
attributable to a high red meat diet in China from 1990 to 2021: an analysis of the Global Burden
of Disease Study 2021
Version: 3 Date: 20 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
It is not clear why the study period has to be terminated in 2021 Abstract Background red meat
is a risk factor not for China but in general Otherwise the document is ready for publication
Thus it could be accepted
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03563-7 (2024)

Title: Temporal trends in disability adjusted life year and mortality for colorectal cancer
attributable to a high red meat diet in China from 1990 to 2021: an analysis of the Global Burden
of Disease Study 2021
Version: 3 Date: 29 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Yi-Chuan Yu
Reviewer's report:
Many thanks to the author's responses to my comments. I do not have additional comments to
make. Just a note, I recommend the authors do a full and careful check on the grammar/spelling
in their final submission as I may not be able to point them all out due to my time limits.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03573-5 (2024)

Title: Prognostic Factors and Adjuvant Chemotherapy Efficacy in Stage I Gastric Cancer
Patients: A Retrospective Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 24 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is a retrospective clinical sudy regarding stage I gastric cancer. Authors would like to
investigate possible prognostic factors as well as to evaluate adjuvant chemotherapy efficacy
in stage I gastric cancer patients. For this purpose they retrospectively analyses 902 patients
data regarding recurrence, mortality, TNM status, effect of chemotherapy etc. According to this
analyses they found 3 independent risk factors ( age #65 years, pT2 stage, and tumor diameter
#5 cm) for recurrence or mortality. They also found that adjuvant chemotherapy has no survival
benefit and could adversely affect stage I gastric cancer patients without risk factors.
The study is well designed and well written. Hypothesis is solid, introduction section is clear
and understantable. Patients and method section has enough information for study population,
surgical treatment methods,statistical analyses. Results are objectively explains with good
graphics and tables. Results are scientifically discusses and compares with current literature in
discussion section.
Overall I would say publication of this study is going to be important contribution to the
literature.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03573-5 (2024)

Title: Prognostic Factors and Adjuvant Chemotherapy Efficacy in Stage I Gastric Cancer
Patients: A Retrospective Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 02 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
As a retrospective single-center study, some limitations of the article are inevitable. For example,
the lack of a standardized adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) protocol: The non-uniformity of the AC
regimens and the fact that the decision to receive AC is left to the patients increases the difficulty
in assessing the effectiveness of AC. I hope the authors can fully explain these limitations in the
discussion. This article provides important insights into the prognostic factors and the efficacy of
adjuvant chemotherapy in stage I gastric cancer patients, but due to the limitations in its design
and implementation, further validation of its findings is needed through prospective, multicenter
studies.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03573-5 (2024)

Title: Prognostic Factors and Adjuvant Chemotherapy Efficacy in Stage I Gastric Cancer
Patients: A Retrospective Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 05 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Ronald Mbiine
Reviewer's report:
This is a well written and informative manuscript.
The statistical analysis is good.
The grammar is good and the flow of the manuscript is logical and coherent.
I found challenges understanding sating table 1. This can be organized better.
There are two variables for each row and this can be confusing.
Otherwise it is a great manuscript.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03572-6 (2024)

Title: Correlation of serum cotinine with fatty liver index in adults: data from the NHANES
March 2017 and 2018
Version: 1 Date: 20 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Title could better change to express use of cotinin and FLI as parameters measuring smoking and
MASLD Abstract Since gender is not a racial subgroup what do authors mean with other racial
subgroups? p=0.06 is a trend but p=0.05 is statistical significant unless authors define statistical
significance otherwise Introduction Relation of cotinin to vaping could be discussed Methods
Authors should explain why they have selected the particular year Excluded patients belong in
results section where representativeness of the sample should be discussed  Would daily smokers
category or even heavy smokers one being different Had authors tried to investigation such a
possibility? Do any patients with positive FLI not present MASLD because they had no other
criterion? Why Mexican American should be separated from other Hispanics ? Statistics Power
of the study should be calculated p=0.06 is a trend but p=0.05 is statistical significant unless
authors define statistical significance otherwise Results All other parameters related to cotinin
are MASLD parameted which should be mentioned
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03572-6 (2024)

Title: Correlation of serum cotinine with fatty liver index in adults: data from the NHANES
March 2017 and 2018
Version: 2 Date: 04 Dec 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/s12876-024-03572-6 (2024)

Title: Correlation of serum cotinine with fatty liver index in adults: data from the NHANES
March 2017 and 2018
Version: 2 Date: 06 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Changes are satisfactory, can be published in its current form
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03562-8 (2024)

Title: Efficacy of Probiotic, Prebiotic, and Synbiotics Supplements in individuals with Anemia:
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Version: 1 Date: 01 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
The paper has valuable outcomes and organize well. The article titled  "Efficacy of Probiotic,
Prebiotic Supplements in Patients with Anemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of
Randomized Controlled Trials" is recommended for publishing.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03562-8 (2024)

Title: Efficacy of Probiotic, Prebiotic, and Synbiotics Supplements in individuals with Anemia:
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Version: 1 Date: 11 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Roghayeh Molani-Gol
Reviewer's report:
Major Comments:
The Effects of Probiotic and Prebiotic Supplementation in anemia patients are interesting and
the study is well-designed, however, there are some points.
-Isn't there any study to assess the effects of probiotics or prebiotics on ferritin levels in patients
with anemia?
It is suggested to conduct a meta-analysis to combine these studies' results.
-Please correct the keywords. There is a duplicate keyword.
-Please add the number of studies obtained from the PubMed database to the table.
-The discussion section is brief. Please add more explanation about the possible mechanism of
the findings.
--There aren’t the funnel plots. Also, evaluate the publication bias by the funnel plot distribution.
Please add the funnel plots as supplementary figures. If there was an asymmetry in the funnel
plot, you could conduct a trim and fill test.
With best regards
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03562-8 (2024)

Title: Efficacy of Probiotic, Prebiotic, and Synbiotics Supplements in individuals with Anemia:
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Version: 1 Date: 11 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract Languages of studies search should be defined Abbreviations should be explained on
their first appearance in the text Number of studies should be reported for each conclusion
even on the expense of background Last sentence of results seems like conclusion while the
previous one should be further explained Methods Language of studies selected should be
defined Wouldn't it be better to contact all authors for raw data instead of missing ones?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03562-8 (2024)

Title: Efficacy of Probiotic, Prebiotic, and Synbiotics Supplements in individuals with Anemia:
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Version: 1 Date: 13 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors, using a meta-analysis, have assessed the efficacy of probiotic, and prebiotic
supplements in patients with anemia:
1) The introduction is good but should be written with a more regular structure.
2) The search date should be updated.
3) Search strategy: what is your approach in searching for gray literature?
4) Data screening and selection should have kappa statistics between the authors.
5) Although you make appropriate assessments of study quality, you are not using study quality
to report the results. The study quality should be used to provide a feel for whether your
results derive from low-quality evidence, moderate quality, etc. Cochrane suggests the use of
the GRADE approach to capture this element.
6) You can consider using newer methods like the Hartung-Knapp adjustment.
7) Please report the confidence intervals for I2.
8) Using I2 is a measure of consistency between studies. Provide tau2 as an absolute measure
for heterogeneity between studies.
9) Results were duplicated in the text and tables/figures. I suggest avoiding any duplication to
improve the readability of the manuscript.
10) The discussion should be organized around arguments avoiding simply describing details
without providing much meaning. A real discussion should also link the findings of the study
to theory and literature. A good discussion should be more solid in the attempt to explain the
observed associations, please revise this section.
11) Explain more about the current limitations, and also explain more about what actions you
took to overcome these limitations
12) The clinical effects of this study should be explained more to the reader.
13) Figures and figure legends require a greater level of detail. Statistics should be included
where appropriate.
14) Some Figures are a bit blurry, please provide higher-resolution images
15) I suggest to re-write the conclusion to be more clear and concise. This is important.
16) I note the authors have reported results according to the PRISMA checklist. Please include
a copy of the PRISMA checklist (with page numbers noted for each section) as a supplementary
appendix, as required by PRISMA.
17) Please specify whether you calculated R or left it as a constant. In the case of calculation,
mention the formula.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03562-8 (2024)

Title: Efficacy of Probiotic, Prebiotic, and Synbiotics Supplements in individuals with Anemia:
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Version: 1 Date: 13 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Quezia Damaris Jones Severino Vasconcelos
Reviewer's report:
Dear Qian Hu and colleagues,
Thank you for the opportunity to review your systematic review manuscript. The paper is
well-structured and provides valuable insights into emerging findings about the use of pro and
prebiotics in anemia. However, I have included specific comments and suggestions below to
help enhance its clarity and precision.
1. Abstract: It would be helpful to clarify if synbiotics were indeed included in the study. Based
on your inclusion criteria, it appears that only studies using probiotics and prebiotics were
considered. However, synbiotics are mentioned in your results section, which may cause some
confusion.
2. Introduction: I suggest mentioning the prevalence of anemia in the male population, especially
among older age groups, as this demographic aspect is less commonly addressed but relevant.
Additionally, you may want to balance your discussion by addressing probiotics, prebiotics, and
synbiotics (if included) equally. Consider discussing what each of these are, their applications,
and their potential benefits for anemia to provide a more comprehensive introduction.
3. Methods: In the intervention, please clarify whether you are referring to a combination
of probiotics and prebiotics or to synbiotics specifically, as this distinction is important.
Additionally, I recommend specifying the exact date range of your database search, e.g., “from
July 2024 to September 2024.”
4. Results: In your flow diagram, please ensure the total number of records identified across
all databases is provided in the first box. Additionally, add spaces after equal signs, e.g., “n =
13” rather than “n =13,” for better readability. In the exclusion criteria, provide further details
where possible, such as studies excluded due to incomplete data on anemia diagnostics (n =
2). Lastly, please correct the final box label to “Studies included in this review.” I also suggest
excluding the “Study Design” column in your table, as all studies included are RCTs, making
this information redundant.
5. Discussion: Please only introduce abbreviations if the terms are used more than once, as this
will simplify the text for readers. Maybe discuss more about the beneficial aspects of -pro and
prebiotics (and synbiotics if is the case) for anemia, what mechanisms etc.
6. Conclusion: I recommend avoiding references to animal research in your conclusion, as your
review focuses exclusively on RCTs. Be cautious about generalizing the findings beyond the
scope of the included studies.
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding these comments.
Kind regards,
QJ
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03562-8 (2024)

Title: Efficacy of Probiotic, Prebiotic, and Synbiotics Supplements in individuals with Anemia:
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Version: 1 Date: 14 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
You have chosen a new and interesting topic to investigate, but there are some inconsistencies
in the number of studies reviewed and the dosage of probiotics that need to be clearly addressed
by you.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03562-8 (2024)

Title: Efficacy of Probiotic, Prebiotic, and Synbiotics Supplements in individuals with Anemia:
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Version: 3 Date: 29 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
I think authors have applied all changes requested Thus the document could be accepted for
publication
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03562-8 (2024)

Title: Efficacy of Probiotic, Prebiotic, and Synbiotics Supplements in individuals with Anemia:
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Version: 3 Date: 29 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Quezia Damaris Jones Severino Vasconcelos
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for sharing your revised manuscript. The changes you’ve made really improve the
quality of the paper. The updated title is much clearer and captures the focus of your study nicely.
That said, there are still a few things that could be refined. For example, while synbiotics are now
included in the title, they’re still missing in some parts of the text, especially in the introduction
and conclusion. It would be great to add a sentence or two about synbiotics in the introduction.
Also, consider including synbiotics as a keyword to help make the paper easier to find.
The methodology section is much better now with the added details. I did notice a small issue
with Figure 1, which I’ve pointed out in the text for you to fix. The discussion has improved a lot
too, so congrats on that! However, one thing I think could be better is linking your explanation
of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics to the RCTs you analyzed. Highlighting this connection
would strengthen the discussion and make it more focused on your review's findings.
The strengths and limitations section is solid, but I’d suggest starting with the limitations and
ending with the strengths to leave readers with a positive impression.  In the end, you can add
a line or two about what future research should focus on.
Lastly, there are still some minor issues regarding the consistent use of abbreviations, and make
sure all bacterial names are italicized.
Overall, great work! You’ve made a lot of progress, congrats on your work.
Best regards,
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03562-8 (2024)

Title: Efficacy of Probiotic, Prebiotic, and Synbiotics Supplements in individuals with Anemia:
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Version: 3 Date: 01 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
While thanking the authors for correcting the article, it should be said that the goal of research is
to reach an answer in a scientific format; therefore, sometimes the answers themselves provide
the basis for raising further questions, and this issue provides the basis for future research. I hope
that the effects of probiotics and their unknown world will be known through scientific methods
and will not be just a tool for selling products derived from them.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03562-8 (2024)

Title: Efficacy of Probiotic, Prebiotic, and Synbiotics Supplements in individuals with Anemia:
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Version: 4 Date: 03 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Quezia Damaris Jones Severino Vasconcelos
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for addressing the comments and incorporating the suggested changes into
the manuscript. The re-revised version provides accurate information and a well-developed
discussion, significantly enhancing the quality of the work. I appreciate the effort you have put
into refining the manuscript.
Based on the improvements made, I now believe that the manuscript meets the standards for
publication. Congratulations.
Best regards,
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03556-6 (2024)

Title: Association between composite dietary antioxidant index and metabolic dysfunction-
associated fatty liver disease: a cross-sectional study from NHANES
Version: 0 Date: 25 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Belinda Elisha
Reviewer's report:
Association between composite dietary antioxidant index and metabolic dysfunction-associated
fatty liver disease: a cross-sectional study from NHANES
Line 24-25 : Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) is a hepatic steatosis
related to metabolic alterations.
Please rephrase this for English fluency
Line 33 : “totally” Please replace by “a total of”
Line 137 : “rusults “ please correct
Table 2 : Please indicate the proportions of individuals with diabetes in the non-MAFLD
population
Comments /Questions
This is an interesting study emphasizing the role of anti -oxidants intake in the prevention of
MAFLD
1- Do you have any data on oral anti -oxidants supplements intake among your study population?
2- For Vitamin C and E are you able to present data on average dietary intake that would play
protective role against MAFLD?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03556-6 (2024)

Title: Association between composite dietary antioxidant index and metabolic dysfunction-
associated fatty liver disease: a cross-sectional study from NHANES
Version: 0 Date: 01 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Maryam Zare
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor:
Thanks for the review sent to me.
My review comments are as follows:
I. Confounders must be mentioned in the results section of the abstract.
II. Results section of the abstract should include information about physical activity, Vitamin
C, and E along with the OR and 95% confidence interval (CI).
III. Abbreviations should be fully written below the Table. For example, OGTT…
IV. The Table's footnote should be given about mean ± SD.
V. It should be written in the footnote of Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4; with the P-value and the analysis
it was obtained.
VI. In Table 4, the confidence interval is narrow in vitamins C and E, but the p-value is
significant. Also, In selenium,…, the confidence interval is completely similar for lower and
upper confidence intervals, but the P-value is substantial. Please present more detailed and
precise results for this Table.
VII. Please Rewrite the method section of the abstract, because it only includes statistical
analyses.
VIII. I think it should be 800 in the physical activity classification.8000 is not rational (equal
to 19 hours per day!). Please recheck it.
IX. Please identify the physical activity questionnaire that has been used.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03556-6 (2024)

Title: Association between composite dietary antioxidant index and metabolic dysfunction-
associated fatty liver disease: a cross-sectional study from NHANES
Version: 1 Date: 28 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Emad Yuzbashian
Reviewer's report:
Thank you very much for revising your paper to make it clearer and more convincing. I have
no further comments to add.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03565-5 (2024)

Title: Association between the lymphocyte-to-high-density lipoprotein ratio and Metabolic
dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease among US adults: a cross-sectional study from
NHANES 2017 to 2020
Version: 1 Date: 05 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract Definition of fibrosis should be provided as well as which way of analysis of CAP and
liver stiffness ( continuous or parametric) was selected Methods If possible protocol of patients
selection should be presented Exclusion criteria such as commorbidities, pregnancy or lacticion
should be defimed if they have been taken into consideration Timepoint of LHR determination
should be given and defined if a ratio of diffrenet measurements was utilized Timepoint of
transient elastography and time distance of LHR measurement should be defined Definition
of the parameters used should be provided In the statistical analysis it could be examined if
using  continuous measurements of liver stiffness might make a difference, as well as whether
instead of using one dichotomus variable using different values for F2,F3 and F4 fibrosis because
inflammation (MASH) is more related with fibrosis than steatosis
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03565-5 (2024)

Title: Association between the lymphocyte-to-high-density lipoprotein ratio and Metabolic
dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease among US adults: a cross-sectional study from
NHANES 2017 to 2020
Version: 3 Date: 30 Oct 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/s12876-024-03565-5 (2024)

Title: Association between the lymphocyte-to-high-density lipoprotein ratio and Metabolic
dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease among US adults: a cross-sectional study from
NHANES 2017 to 2020
Version: 3 Date: 31 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstarct Numerical values should be moved from  methods to result section The aim has already
been presented in the background Method Patients excluded belong in the results section
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03565-5 (2024)

Title: Association between the lymphocyte-to-high-density lipoprotein ratio and Metabolic
dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease among US adults: a cross-sectional study from
NHANES 2017 to 2020
Version: 4 Date: 04 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Authors have applied all changes requested Thus I congratulate them as i suggest acceptance
for publication
Review for 10.1186/s12876-024-03565-5 (2024)

Title: Association between the lymphocyte-to-high-density lipoprotein ratio and Metabolic
dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease among US adults: a cross-sectional study from
NHANES 2017 to 2020
Version: 4 Date: 05 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.