JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-24 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:The pro-apoptotic K-Ras 4A proto-oncoprotein does not affect
tumorigenesis in the ApcMin/+ mouse small intestine
Version: 2Date:8 May 2008
Reviewer: Sylvie Robine
Reviewer's report:
The authors have made modifications accordingly to the reviewer questions.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-23 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease in severely mentally
retarded people: a systematic review.
Version: 2Date:26 April 2008
Reviewer: Yoshikazu Kinoshita
Reviewer's report:
The authors of this manuscript investigated the symptoms and signs of GERD in
mentally retarded people by a systematic review of publications. The study is well
designed and well performed. The information obtained by this systematic review
will be a good help for health-care workers working on patients with mental
retardation. The weak point of this study is the wide range variations of the
publications collected from this systematic publication search. Enrollement
criteria and endopoint of the study are so different between studies. Because of
this wide variation, the majour part of the manuscript is too descriptive and, in
some parts, is just a summary of the past publications.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-23 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease in severely mentally
retarded people: a systematic review.
Version: 2Date:8 May 2008
Reviewer: Peter Malfertheiner
Reviewer's report:
This is a systematic review about GERD symptoms in severely mentally retarded
people that provides important information in the great field of GERD. Although
there were difficulties in comparison of the different studies I have no significant
criticisms of this manuscript. Nevertheless this review visualizes the necessity of
further prospective studies to better evaluate the symptoms of mentally retarded
people to alleviate their complaints and to improve their quality of life.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-22 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Written versus verbal patient information before gastrointestinal
endoscopy: a randomized trial
Version: 1Date:31 March 2008
Reviewer: Markus B Frenz
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
The question posed by the authors is well defined. They compare written versus
verbal patient information before gi endoscopy in a randomized trial.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
The methods are well described and seem appropirate. In order to make the two
groups more comparable bthe verbal consent group should also have received
the information at the same time before the procedure as the written informed
consent group (not on the day of the procedure).
3. Are the data sound?
Yes
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
Yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
Yes
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Yes
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
Yes
9. Is the writing acceptable?
Yes
• Discretionary Revisions
none
• Minor Essential Revisions
The authors refer to figure one on page 5 and 6. This figure does not appear in
the figure section and is missing from the paper. This should be ammendet.
• Major Compulsory Revisions (which the author must respond to before a
decision on publication can be reached)
None
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-21 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Examination of the gastric enteric nervous system and muscle in patients
with diabetic gastroparesis
Version: 1Date:26 September 2007
Reviewer: Bodil Ohlsson
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
I think this is an interesting report showing the broad spectra of differences that
can be found in dysmotiity. However, I want to change the title and call this a
case report, as it only contains 2 cases with gastroparesis. I do not think that this
can be called an original research article but a case report. This shuld be able to
read in the title.
I think that You in M&M describe what the different markers show and label. Now
You mention this in the result section, but everything what the substances label
should be mentioned in the M&M. Be careful and have the abbreviations after
each marker, for example on page 5 You have not mentioned that tyrosine
hydroxylase is shortened as TH.
In the results, please divide the results in case 1 and case 2, to make it easier to
quickly see.
On page 5, explain for the one who is not that familiar with the methods how the
ICCs are divided. Myenteric ICCs and muscle layers can be confusing. Instead
use ICCs around the myenetric plexus??
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
There are some grammatical errors. On page 6, a unifying
Page 10, the middle section. "That are occur earlier" What does this mean?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-21 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Examination of the gastric enteric nervous system and muscle in patients
with diabetic gastroparesis
Version: 1Date:9 October 2007
Reviewer: Michael Horowitz
Reviewer's report:
This is a well performed and presented study that represents a useful addition to
existing literature. The absence of formal assessment of autonomic function is a
limitation. My comments all relate to minor / discretionary revision.
(i) p 3,4 It would be helpful to provide additional information about glycaemic
control (glycated haemoglobin), diabetes management and body weight / BMI in
both patients if available. Case I is unusual because of the short duration of
diabetes.
The results of the gastric emptying measurements should ideally be included.
(ii) p4 When was the response to gastric electrical stimulation evaluated?
(iii) In the ‘discussion’ it may be appropriate to comment more specifically about
the effects of acute hyperglycaemia. (eg. Gastroenterology 1997:113;60-6), and
insulin-induced hypoglycaemia (eg. J. Clin Endocrinol Metab 2005:90;4489-95),
on gastric emptying . It is likely that gastroparesis predisposes to postprandial
hypoglycaemia in insulin-treated patients (Neurogastroenterol Motil
2005:18;405-7)
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-20 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Short-term triple therapy with azithromycin for Helicobacter pylori
eradication: low cost, high compliance, but low efficacy.
Version: 1Date:5 November 2007
Reviewer: Colm A O'Morain
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The quality of English needs to be improved. I have included a number of
corrections but the article would need to be reviewed again with corrections prior
to publication.
2. Paragraph 3 (under the Results heading) needs to be rewritten and the
statistics/percentages in this paragraph need to be explained more clearly.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Replace “high digestive” Endoscopy with “upper gastrointestinal” Endoscopy.
2. See other recommendations.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-20 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Short-term triple therapy with azithromycin for Helicobacter pylori
eradication: low cost, high compliance, but low efficacy.
Version: 1Date:20 November 2007
Reviewer: David Y Graham
Reviewer's report:
General The authors evaluated azithromycin for H. pylori eradication. The
success rate was low and they do not recommend this approach. The reason for
trying this approach was to find a low cost regimen for Brazil.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
Critique: There are a number of prior studies with azithromycin showing that it
was not an effective anti-H. pylori antimicrobial. There are macrolides other than
clarithromycin that are effective but possibly they are not available in Brazil. It is
not clear how the sample size of 60 was chosen. The manuscript could be
shortened by at least 30-40% as it has one message: we tried this therapy and it
did not work.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
Dr. Graham has received small amounts of grant support and/or free drugs or
urea breath tests from Meretek, Jannsen/Eisai, and TAP, and BioHit for
investigator initiated and completely investigator controlled research. Dr. Graham
is a consultant for Novartis in relation to vaccine development for treatment or
prevention of H. pylori infection. Dr. Graham is a also paid consultant for Otsuka
Pharmaceuticals and a member of the Board of Directors of Meretek,
Diagnostics, the manufacturer of the 13C-urea breath test. Dr. Graham also
receives royalties on the Baylor College of Medicine patent covering the
serologic test, HM-CAP.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-19 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Influence of acute pancreatitis on the responsiveness of rat mesenteric and
pulmonary arteries
Version: 1Date:20 February 2008
Reviewer: Daniel Closa
Reviewer's report:
The paper entitled â##Influence of acute pancreatitis on the responsiveness of
rat mesenteric and pulmonary arteriesâ## from Camargo EA et al. reports on the
effect of two different models of experimental cute pancreatitis on the relaxing
and contractile responses of mesenteric or pulmonary artery rings. Authors
observed that, the potency of acetylcholine was decreased in mesenteric but not
in pulmonary rings. No changes were observed in response to SNP and the
potency for PHE was decreased in both mesenteric and pulmonary rings. It was
also observed marked increases in NOx- levels after induction of pancreatitis.
Authors concluded that the changes in response to Ach were associated with
high plasma NOx- levels and that the subsensitivity of contractile response to
PHE migh be involved in the complications of acute pancreatitis.
Major revisions
1. The main problem is the conclusion that links the NOx- levels observed in
plasma with the changes observed in response to PHE. Reports from other
disorders suggests that this could be an explanation, but there is no a direct
demonstration in this work that allows to conclude the link between the two
phenomena. The use of an inhibitor of NOS could be an easy way to
demonstrate this hypothesis or, alternatively, conclusions can be modiffied.
Minor revisions
1. Authors used two different models of pancreatitis. Taurocholate-induced
pancreatitis is a usual model to induce severe pancreatitis, but administration of
PLA2 form Naja mocambique is less common. The rationale for using two
models, and in particular the second one must be explained.
2. In background, authors indicate that â##acute pancreatitis is a disease
characterized by activation of pancreatic enzymes, with severe tissue damage,
local inflammatory reaction, haemorrhage that is associated with remote organ
failure, sepsis and a high prevalence of mortalityâ##. This definition only applies
to the severe forms of the disease. This fat needs to be pointed out.
3. Despite models of pancreatitis are well established, a marker of severity
(lipase, amylase,â#¦) must be included in the experimental design.
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-19 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Influence of acute pancreatitis on the responsiveness of rat mesenteric and
pulmonary arteries
Version: 1Date:21 February 2008
Reviewer: Werner Hartwig
Reviewer's report:
Camargo et al. investigated the responsiveness of rat mesenteric and pulmonary
arteries in acute pancreatitis. In an experimental design they isolated these
vessels and performed in vitro experiments using acetylcholine, sodium
nitroprussid and phenylephrine to assess vascular reactivity. The authors
conclude that acute pancreatitis induces endothelium-dependent changes in
relaxation/contractile response in these vessels which might be involved in the
pathogenesis of systemic organ injury.
Overall, the manuscript is well written. However, the reviewer would suggest
some improvements:
1. Arterial endothelium damage has been suggested to be responsible for the
observed findings. It would be helpful if the authors could provide more evidence
to support this hypothesis (e.g. electron microscopy). Since all measurements of
vascular reactivity have been performed in vitro, it may also help to assess
vascular changes in vivo (e.g. mesenteric vessels are well accessible for
intravital microscopy).
2. Changes have been presented only for the very early course of acute
pancreatitis (4 hours). Since the maximum expression of inducible NOS is at
about 6-12 hours after induction of acute pancreatitis, the reviewer suggests
additional experiments at some later point to show possible changes also in
pulmonary arteries.
3. Do the findings correlate with the severity of organ injury in these models of
acute pancreatitis?
Minors:
Methods: Please provide the amount of animals used for each experiment.
Furthermore, data should be presented characterizing the severity of the disease
in each experimental group.
Some spelling errors, e.g.:
Page 3: â#¦have showedâ#¦
Page 6: â#¦.proinflammatory cytokines is â#¦
Page 8: â#¦cut into to ringsâ#¦.
Figure 1: no significances provided (but in figure legends)
Table 1: just maximal relaxation response presented. Somewhat confusing with
phenylephrine
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-19 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Influence of acute pancreatitis on the responsiveness of rat mesenteric and
pulmonary arteries
Version: 1Date:26 February 2008
Reviewer: Jean-Louis Frossard
Reviewer's report:
The paper by Camargo et al is aimed at evaluating the influence of acute
pancreatitis on the responsiveness of rat mesenteric and pulmonary arteries. The
authors used the well known model of taurocholate induced acute pancreatitis
and presented their data in two main figures. They found minor changes
(although some are significantly different from control groups) in the dose
response curves using Ach, Phe and SNP as pharmacological agents.
Several points deserve comments.
Major points:
The authors do not demonstrate how severe the pancreatitis was in the rat. They
must give amylase or lipase concentrations in all groups, and show others
parameters that are usually used to illustrate the occurrence of pancreatitis
(pancreatic edema, pancreatic necrosis, sequestration of inflammatory cells
within the pancreas).
They focus on a very pivotal remote organ injury studying the lung during acute
pancreatitis. The data provided in this study add minor incremental new data and
even if some of the results brought by the authors are statistically different in
figure 1 from control treated animals, it does not mean to me at least anything
relevant.
The nitrite/nitrate data are not new.
Altogether the paper does not bring important new data.
What next?: Reject because scientifically unsound
Level of interest: An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a
scientific/medical journal
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-19 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Influence of acute pancreatitis on the responsiveness of rat mesenteric and
pulmonary arteries
Version: 2Date:14 April 2008
Reviewer: Daniel Closa
Reviewer's report:
Authors adequately answered my comments
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-19 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Influence of acute pancreatitis on the responsiveness of rat mesenteric and
pulmonary arteries
Version: 2Date:24 April 2008
Reviewer: Susan Wai Sum Leung
Reviewer's report:
In the revised manuscript, the authors have addressed my concerns and clarified
the uncleariness. I have no additional comments on this revised manuscript.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-19 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Influence of acute pancreatitis on the responsiveness of rat mesenteric and
pulmonary arteries
Version: 2Date:28 April 2008
Reviewer: Werner Hartwig
Reviewer's report:
Camargo et al have answered some but not all issues that have been raised.
Importantly, no in vivo data has been provided. Therefore, I would strongly
suggest that "in vitro" is included in the title and also in the first sentence of the
discussion.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-17 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Verification of the plasma biomarker, senescence marker protein 30,
previously associated with acute liver failure using mass-spectrometry-based
proteomics
Version: 1Date:29 January 2008
Reviewer: Frank V. V Schiodt
Reviewer's report:
This interesting study from Peking describes the possible role of SMP30 in acute
liver failure. The findings are intriguing but some rewriting and elaboration are
needed.
Major compulsatory revisions: none.
Title: should perhaps be changed to: â##SMP30 in severe acute hepatic disease:
validation of a mass spectrometry proteomics assay.â##
Abstract: Should be rewritten. Background should be more clear, results should
describe how much levels were increased or decreased.
Background: Last paragraph should not indicate results.
Methods: good, but we need to have the 8 groups described in detail here and
not only in figure legends.
Patient protocol: traditionally, ALF is defined as INR > 1.5 and hepatic
encephalopathy (and not jaundice). Did any of the patients have HE? Otherwise I
suggest using the term severe acute hepatic disease.
Results: For the animal model and patients: did you have any data such as INR,
bili, creatinine, ALT? If so, the correlate SMP30 with them (I know that WB is
mainly semiquantitative).
Discussion: generally good. You should leave out the sentence on proteasome
subunit alpha levels since it does not add anything to this paper. â## Are future
human studies justified? I think so.
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-17 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Verification of the plasma biomarker, senescence marker protein 30,
previously associated with acute liver failure using mass-spectrometry-based
proteomics
Version: 1Date:6 February 2008
Reviewer: kazuyuki Suzuki
Reviewer's report:
Major coments
ï¼#ï¼# The clinical and experimental studies by the authors show that plasma
SMP30, determined by the mass-spectrometry-based proteomics, is a potential
marker for assessing the severity of acute liver failure. However, the quantitative
measurement of plasma SMP30 by this method is cumbersome and
time-consuming. In order to fully evaluate the clinical implications of SMP30 in
acute liver failure, an ELISA assay for SMP30 needs to be developed. Some
modifications for the â##Resultsâ## and â##Discussionâ## of the manuscript
should be made.
ï¼#ï¼# Please summarize, in a new Table, the differences in liver function tests
(e.g., AST/ALT, T-Bil) in the 4 experimental groups (saline, LPS, D-GalN,
D-GalN/LPS).
ï¼#ï¼# In the D-GalN/LPS group, SMP 30 mRNA levels and protein expression
are markedly decreased in the liver, while they are increased in the plasma. This
discrepancy should to be addressed and discussed in the manuscript, including
its mechanism(s).
ï¼#ï¼# Figure 4 shows plasma SMP30 levels in 4 patients with acute liver failure
(2 with HBV infection and 2 with drug-induced liver injury). Was there a difference
in SMP30 levels between viral infection and drug-induced liver injury? It would be
useful if the authors add the information regarding the association between
plasma SMP30 and PT-INR, the degree of hepatic encephalopathy, and
prognosis.
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-17 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Senescence marker protein 30 in acute liver failure: validation of a mass
spectrometry proteomics assay
Version: 2Date:18 March 2008
Reviewer: kazuyuki Suzuki
Reviewer's report:
In this revised paper, the authors answered to my questions at once. The
answeres were appropriately. The results of this study may be useful in the
research of pathogenesis and treatment of acute liver failure.
What next?: Accept without revision
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-17 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Senescence marker protein 30 in acute liver failure: validation of a mass
spectrometry proteomics assay
Version: 2Date:31 March 2008
Reviewer: Frank V. V Schiodt
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for this revised improved manuscript. I have no further comments.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-18 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Absence of gastrointestinal infections in a cohort of patients with
Zollinger-Ellison syndrome and other acid hypersecretors receiving long-term
acid suppression with lansoprazole
Version: 2Date:6 March 2008
Reviewer: Alessandra Gambero
Reviewer's report:
The question prosed by authors was well defined. The methods were
appropriated and the data was well presented. In the discussion section, the
authors present a critic view about the work limitations.
What next?: Accept without revision
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-18 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Absence of gastrointestinal infections in a cohort of patients with
Zollinger-Ellison syndrome and other acid hypersecretors receiving long-term
acid suppression with lansoprazole
Version: 2Date:10 March 2008
Reviewer: Alan Thomson
Reviewer's report:
Absence of gastrointestinal infections in a cohort of patients with Zollinger-Ellison
syndrome and other acid hypersecretors receiving long-term acid suppression
with lansoprazole
Wilcox (et al.)
This is a well-conducted study with several limitations which are acknowledged
and well discussed by the authors. Their main point, which is of major clinical
importance and which is provided in this large number of unique Z-E patients, is
given in the title.
My comments are of a "Minor Essential Revisions' nature.
1. Abstract. The ‘Background’ statement suggests that it is fully accepted that
“…acid therapy increases the risk for gastrointestinal infections…”, but in fact this
is controversial. Please consider the following in the background, taken from the
top of page 6: “The relationship between proton pump inhibitor therapy and other
acid suppressing medications and the risk of gastrointestinal infections remains
controversial.”
2. Results. Please clarify: the median patient years of follow-up, given as 6.25
years in the Abstract and in Table 2, yet at the top of pg.5 it is stated
“Lansoprazole was given for 2-207 months with a median of seventy five
months…”
3. Question. While there is understandably no control group, is there any
information in the literature, which could be placed in the discussion, of the
number of infection episodes that would be expected in a healthy population that
was followed for 45,862 patient-months? It strikes me that “only one patient
reported any gastroenteritis…” (page 5, paragraph 2, line 8) it is surprisingly low.
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-15 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Time Esophageal pH<4 Overestimates the Prevalence of Pathologic
Esophageal Reflux in Subjects with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Treated
with Proton Pump Inhibitors
Version: 2Date:25 January 2008
Reviewer: Mattijs E Numans
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
I would want the authors to explain briefly what the concept of "integrated acidity"
is, what it means and how it is measured in the method section, in stead of
simply referring to "previously published" material. And I would like to read how
this is related to other ways of classifying pathologic reflux (SSI, SAP etc) either
in the methods section, or in the discussion, to be able to put their findings in
perspective.
Secondly it seems important to be able to read clearly what the relevance of the
misclassification issue that this manuscript tells us about, is from a clinical point
of view. I can live with a discussion on diagnostic test characteristics too, but nor
the diagnostic nor the prognostic meaning of their findings is described clearly in
the text.
Minor Essential Revisions
I would want to see the most relevant ROC-curves in the manuscript, in stead of
only mentioning AUC's in tables as the authors do now.
Discretionary Revisions
Relatively correct language use. However, discussion section might be shortened
by more concise writing.
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-15 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Time Esophageal pH<4 Overestimates the Prevalence of Pathologic
Esophageal Reflux in Subjects with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Treated
with Proton Pump Inhibitors
Version: 2Date:1 February 2008
Reviewer: Martin Fein
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
1. The basis for the paper is the analysis of gastric integrated acidity. Therefore,
it is necessary to explain this method briefly.
2. The authors have observed that the prevalence of pathologic esophageal
reflux in patients treated with PPI is lower when measured by gastric integrated
acidity.
What are the consequences for the use of pH-monitoring? Which patients need
to have this analysis and what are possible consequences?
(needs to be added in the discussion to show the advance possible by using this
method)
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-15 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Time Esophageal pH<4 Overestimates the Prevalence of Pathologic
Esophageal Reflux in Subjects with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Treated
with Proton Pump Inhibitors
Version: 3Date:16 April 2008
Reviewer: Mattijs E Numans
Reviewer's report:
No further comments
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-15 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Time Esophageal pH<4 Overestimates the Prevalence of Pathologic
Esophageal Reflux in Subjects with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Treated
with Proton Pump Inhibitors
Version: 3Date:17 April 2008
Reviewer: Martin Fein
Reviewer's report:
In response to my review the paper has been considerably improved.
It contains a clear description of the method of gastric integrated acidity
and a detailed discussion on its potential clinical relevance.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-14 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Total and caspace-cleaved cytokeratine 18 in chronic cholecystitis: A
prospective study
Version: 1Date:19 December 2007
Reviewer: Stig Linder
Reviewer's report:
Simopoulos et al., "Total and caspase-cleaved cytokeratin 18 in chronic
cholecystitis: A prospective study".
This is a rather preliminary but potentially interesting study on detection of
caspase-cleaved CK18 products in bile samples.
The levels of caspase-cleaved CK18 in the bile of both groups of cholecystitis
patients is high (5 - 10-fold) compared to the levels observed in serum from the
same patients (and from normal individuals as reported in the literature). This
finding may indicate elevated apoptosis in the epithelial cells of the gall bladder.
It is difficult to interpret the finding since the levels of caspase-cleaved CK18 in
bile fluid from normal subjects is unknown. If it is not possible to obtain bile
from normal individuals, the study is therefore very not conclusive.
How were measurements in bile performed? The M30/M65 ELISA assays have
not previously been used for bile samples and assay performance, CK18
solubilite etc (and, in addition, dilution and spike recovery characteristics) are not
known. Were any assay validation studies performed (efficiency of detection of
exogenously added assay standard to bile fluid, dilution linearity of bile
samples)?
The M30 antibody was used for immunohistochemistry (Fig. 1). The experiment
is refered to as "intense expression of CK18 was presented in the epithelial cells
of the mucosa of the gall bladder". This is misleading - the authors must mean to
say "cells staining positive for caspase-cleaved CK18 were present...". However,
I do not see the staining pattern expected (occasional apoptotic cells staining
positive using the M30 antibody) in the figure (all cells can not be positive -
apoptosis is a transient phenomenon and the epithelium would not be maintained
if this was so). Positive cells should be indicated with arrows. Again, there is no
comparison to gall bladder from subjects not suffering from cholecystitis (which I
understand may be difficult to obtain).
This study would be interesting if it is possible to perform IHC on normal gall
bladder epithelium, or obtain gall samples from subjects not suffering from
cholecystitis. If this is not possible, the study appears to be of liminted value.
Minor issues:
1. There are some spelling errors; caspace (caspase), cytokeratine (cytokeratin).
2. Page 3: "liberating neo-epitopes inaccessible to thr caspase cleavage site"
(what does this mean?)
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have a financial interest in the company that produces the ELISA kits used for
this study (Peviva AB).
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-14 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Total and caspace-cleaved cytokeratine 18 in chronic cholecystitis: A
prospective study
Version: 1Date:8 January 2008
Reviewer: Hendrik Jan Ankersmit
Reviewer's report:
I have taken a look at this paper and I would accept it, the work is
performed in a sound manner, the conclusion is accaptable. Accept without
alteration, bibliography can be altered to evidence that ccCK-18 was shown
to be increased in acute liver failure, to my knowledge there are three
citations.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-14 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Total and caspase-cleaved cytokeratin 18 in chronic cholecystitis: A
prospective study
Version: 2Date:26 March 2008
Reviewer: Stig Linder
Reviewer's report:
I have looked at the paper sent for re-review and find it acceptable for
publication.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-13 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence and determinants of biochemical dysfunction of the liver in
Atayal aboriginal community of Taiwan: Is betel nut chewing a risk factor?
Version: 1Date:18 July 2007
Reviewer: Mia Hashibe
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
- Grammar needs to be checked throughout
- there should be a description of whether the different aboriginal groups are
racially/ethnically different
- pg 7 - abbreviations should be clarified when they are first mentioned (ALT, etc)
- alcohol drinking and smoking are not defined. is this 'ever' drinking or was there
a specific question asked about number of drinks per week to define who is a
drinker?
- what is the number of subjects eligible? what is the proportion of those that
participated? are the participants and nonparticipants different?
- are the subjects who underwent the sonography different in various
demographic distributions from the bigger group of subjects who participated?
- pg 12 - sentence about 65 percent participation rate in 2 groups being similar
and not being able to account for differences in liver function observed is
completely false
- page 12 - last sentence - why do authors think only random misclassification is
a problem? there can be plenty of nonrandom error that is not discussed.
- should separate out the effects of betel quid and cigarette smoking
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Reject because scientifically unsound
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-13 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence and determinants of biochemical dysfunction of the liver in
Atayal aboriginal community of Taiwan: Is betel nut chewing a risk factor?
Version: 3Date:11 October 2007
Reviewer: Mia Hashibe
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
The following comments have still not been addressed:
1) are the participants and nonparticipants different?
2) sentence about 65 percent participation rate in 2 groups being similar
and not being able to account for differences in liver function observed is
completely false. This sentence is still there. The authors should either
delete it or reconsider that the similar participation rates does not assure
validity.
3) why do authors think only random misclassification is
a problem? there can be plenty of nonrandom error that is not discussed.
Authors wrote - Thank for your suggestion. We have ever considered the
condition of nonrandom error. But our physician (GI man), technician and
laboratory all the same. Having the same team does not assure there are no
sources of nonrandom error. Authors should consider this more.
4) - should separate out the effects of betel quid and cigarette smoking.
Authors wrote - We have adjusted betel quid and cigarette smoking effects.
Not clear where.
5) There are still a lot of grammatical errors.
What next?: Reject because scientifically unsound
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-13 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence and determinants of biochemical dysfunction of the liver in
Atayal aboriginal community of Taiwan: Is betel nut chewing a risk factor?
Version: 3Date:27 December 2007
Reviewer: Eric M Yoshida
Reviewer's report:
My overall impression, after reading the re-revised manuscript submission is that
the manuscript is one of interest. This manuscript provides rare insight into the
health-problems, especially those pertaining to hepatology, of the Aboriginal
community of Taiwan from a public health perspective. Although most likely
articles about this community are published in local Taiwainese medical journals,
the liver disease-related health concerns of this community are not very
well-known outside of Taiwan. This manuscript also provides a great deal of
education regarding the habit of betal quid consumption, the context of its
consumption, and an analysis that suggests that it is an independent risk factor
for abnormal liver biochemistry. The new multiple logistic regression analysis of
the re-revised manuscript suggests that the deleterious hepatologic effects of
betal quid consumption are additive to the effects of chronic viral hepatitis (note,
"additive" not "synergistic" since I do not believe that the analysis can support a
finding of "synergy" where the effects of the two factors would be multiplative).
My only main question regarding this analysis is whether the investigators
controlled for BMI in their new analysis (ie. they controlled for alcohol, cigarette
smoking etc).
Another concern that should be easily addressed, is the fact that the new
manuscript appears to have more English composition errors than I recall
reading before. For instance, in the Introduction, one would not state that the
endogenous metabolism of areca nut to hepatotoxic metabolites (ie.
nitrosamines) would be "intravenous" but rather "systemic". Errors like this
appear throughout the re-revised version. Similarly, the abstract needs to be
re-written as it does not adequately reflect the methods or findings reported in the
main paper.
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-12 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Rebleeding rate after capsule endoscopy for patients with obscure
gastrointestinal bleeding
Version: 1Date:14 February 2008
Reviewer: mark E. mcalindon
Reviewer's report:
Major 1: I am not absolutely clear if "therapeutic intervention" and "specific
medical therapy" are considered seperately - I think they are, but perhaps this
needs to be clarified further.
Major 2: One of the main messages is that therapeutic intervention reduces
rebleed rate, but there are no details about these two groups of patients. Perhaps
patients did not undergo intervention because they had significant co-morbidity
(eg advanced heart failure) and were on aspirin or anticoagulants. One would
expect that this kind of patient would be at high risk of rebleed. i.e. is it the
intervention that helps, or is it that those who do not undergo intervention are a
high risk group? This should be addressed.
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-12 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Rebleeding rate after interventional therapy directed by capsule endoscopy
in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding
Version: 2Date:26 March 2008
Reviewer: mark E. mcalindon
Reviewer's report:
The two major points that I raised have been clearly addressed and
should no longer present an obstacle to publication.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-12 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Rebleeding rate after interventional therapy directed by capsule endoscopy
in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding
Version: 2Date:27 March 2008
Reviewer: Diego GARCIA-COMPEAN
Reviewer's report:
I have carefully reviewed the resubmitted manuscript and all the suggestions that
I made to authors in my previous review have been taken into account. In my
opinion the resubmitted manuscript is now acceptable for publication. In this
context I have no more comments.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-8-11 (2008)

Reviewer's report
Title:Effects of Pectin Liquid on Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in Children
With Cerebral Palsy
Version: 2Date:15 November 2007
Reviewer: Yvan Vandenplas
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)x
What next?: Accept without revision
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'