JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0387-y (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Laparoscopy shows superiority over endoscopy for early detection of
Malignant Atrophic Papulosis (MAP) gastrointestinal complications: A case report
and review of literature
Version:5Date:12 April 2015
Reviewer: Christos Dr Zouboulis
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions. All required changes have been noticed on the
reviewed manuscript attached.
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:
Since Dr. Magro is a patent owner for one of the compounds described this has
to be declared in the COI.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0387-y (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Laparoscopy shows superiority over endoscopy for early detection of
Malignant Atrophic Papulosis (MAP) gastrointestinal complications: A case report
and review of literature
Version:5Date:4 June 2015
Reviewer: J. Patrick Whelan
Reviewer's report:
I think this is an exceedingly important study, with the potential to save lives in
patients with undiagnosed severe abdominal pain. But I would suggest the
following changes:
1. The authors cite a series of case reports, designated "Patient A, B, etc." There
needs to be more information provided about these patients, even though most
of them have citations. Age is essential, and it would be helpful to know what
other kinds of diagnostic studies were attempted to diagnose their abdominal
pain -- in particular the kind of previous imaging they may have had, whether CT
or MRI or ultrasound.
2. Along these lines, in making the case that only something as invasive as
laparoscopy or laparotomy are suitable, I think that readers need to be informed
that other non-invasive diagnostic modalities are not up to the job.
3. In fact, these authors have previously suggested in a brief letter (Shapiro et al.
"N Engl J Med. 2014 Oct 2;371(14):1361. Case 18-2014: A man with a rash,
myalgia, and weakness.") that CT scanning was not suitable for diagnosis of
Degos disease, and I think this reference should be cited in the current
manuscript.
4. The word "treprostinil" is misspelled in line 20.
Level of interest: An exceptional article
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have collaborated with some of these authors in the past, in that there are very
few researchers working in the field of Degos disease. But I declare that I have
no competing interests in refereeing this work, financial or otherwise.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0386-z (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Xyloglucan for the treatment of acute diarrhea: results of a randomized,
controlled, open-label, parallel group, multicentre, national clinical trial
Version:5Date:16 July 2015
Reviewer: Claudia Banzato
Reviewer's report:
Gnessi L et al analyzed the efficacy, safety and time of onset of the anti-diarrheal
effect of xyloglucan in comparison with two anti-diarrheal products. They
concluded that xyloglucan is equally or better efficacious at improving symptoms
than the other two products, but they did not declare the significance of the
statistical analysis.
The authors need to describe the results more accurately with table and results
of statistical analysis.
- Major Compulsory Revisions
METHODS
Eligibility criteria
It is important to clarify if patients with inflammatory bowel disease are included
or excluded. With this inclusion criteria a flare of IBD could result included in the
study.
Randomisation
It is not described the methods used to generate the random allocation
sequence, and the type of randomisation (blocking and block size)
RESULTS
The results are not completely clear. The significativity of the statistical analysis
process is not described in enough detail.
It would be useful to show results in a table, divided by group, with statistical
significance.
The unanswered question is if the mentioned differences are statistically
significative.
Figure 1 is not clear, in particular section A (number of stool from basal -200???)
- Minor Essential Revisions
INTRODUCTION
The last paragraph is not suitable for introduction
METHODS
In the fourth paragraph: the description of the properties of xyloglucan are not
useful at this point of the article. It is suggested to insert it in the introduction or in
the discussion.
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.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0383-2 (2015)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Prognostic and clinical significance of syndecan -1 in colorectal cancer: a meta -analysis  
 
Version: 1 Date: 17 Sep 2015  
 
Reviewer: Andrew Rowland  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors have adequately addressed each of the reviewer's comments. The manuscript is now  
acceptable for publication.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in y our comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects req uire further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publi cation of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you curr ently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any  other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Acc ess Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0379-y (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Histone deacetylase (HDAC)-1, -2, -4 and -6 expression in human
pancreatic adenocarcinoma: associations with clinicopathological parameters,
tumor proliferative capacity and patients' survival
Version:2Date:29 August 2015
Reviewer: Tao Liu
Reviewer's report:
Giaginis C et al examined HDAC1, HDAC2, HDAC4 and HDAC6 protein
expression in pancreatic cancer tissues and counterpart normal cells, and
correlated HDAC expression with patient prognosis. Overall, this is an interesting
study.
Major comments:
HDAC1 and HDAC2 belong to class I HDAC. It would be more informative, if the
authors analyse the expression of HDAC1 and HDAC2 proteins together against
patient prognosis. It would also be informative, if the authors analyse the
expression of HDAC1, HDAC2, HDAC4 and HDAC6 proteins together against
patient prognosis.
The authors need to provide IHC data on HDAC1, HDAC2, HDAC4 and HDAC6
staining in normal pancreatic cells.
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/s12876-015-0375-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Reduced lymphocyte count as an early marker for secondary pancreatic
infection in acute pancreatitis
Version:2Date:19 February 2015
Reviewer: Albert Lowenfels
Reviewer's report:
This report looks at the relationship between lymphocyte count and infection after
acute pancreatitis. Major problems requiring attention:
1. About 85% of the initial group of patients have been excluded. This will
severely limit the generalizeability of the information to clinicians. It also seems
likely that the included patients were sicker than the excluded patients because
excluded patients probably had milder symptoms since they delayed seeking
help for 48 hours.
2. The endpoint, infection, is not so easy to measure, and it is unclear how the
authors accomplished this. Another perhaps better endpoint would have been
disease severity.
3. The statistical analysis is difficult to follow and needs professional help. For
example Table 1 compares the non-infection and the infection group and the
listed p-values are the results from univariate analysis. It is unclear what table 3
represents. And with respect to amylase why would it been a significant predictor
in table 3 but not in table 1? For multivariate analysis it is customary to include all
the variables that were significant at the univariate level in the final table showing
multivariable results.
4. Assuming the findings are correct, how will clinicians use this new information
in the management of patients with acute pancreatitis?
5. It is unclear what the vertical bars represent in figure 2. Also the asterisks in
that figure--what do they represent?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0375-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Reduced lymphocyte count as an early marker for secondary pancreatic
infection in acute pancreatitis
Version:2Date:9 June 2015
Reviewer: Jens M Mayer
Reviewer's report:
The authors have reviewed an impressive number of patients presenting with
acute pancreatitis within a relatively short period of time and restrospectively
examined the predictive value of several clinical and chemical parameters on the
development of secondary pancreatic infection. The goal of the study is clear and
the methods applied are absolutely adequate. It is remarkable that the authors
were able to recruit this large number of patients, this is only possible in a well
organized and clinically expert setting. The data seem genuine and
unmanipulated, I could find no inaccuracies or other signs of data
mismanagement and the result part is up to good scientific standards. The
discussion is well made and takes into account the most recent and relevant
publication on the examined issue. Also, it sticks to the findings of the study and
does not stride too far into theory or pathophysiology, which would not be
supported by the authors’ findings. There is no widespread discussion of the
limitations of the presented work, but considering that this is a clearly clinical
paper, this point is not really relevant. Title and abstract are adequate, the writing
is well done and the manuscript is easy to read and understand.
In summary, it was a pleasure to read and review this recommendable article and
I strongly support its publication in your prestigious magazine.
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/s12876-015-0375-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Reduced lymphocyte count as an early marker for secondary pancreatic
infection in acute pancreatitis
Version:3Date:19 August 2015
Reviewer: Vikesh Singh
Reviewer's report:
Shen et al. present a nice study evaluating early serologic markers and scoring
systems for predicting secondary infection in acute pancreatitis.
The major flaw of this study is that the predictor is being assessed at a time when
it may not be clear to the clinician that the patient has pancreatic necrosis. Early
CT scanning (within 72 hours of presentation) does not often clearly show that a
patient has pancreatic necrosis and that is why guidelines advocate that CT
scans be obtained later in the course of hospitalization. Therefore, a
retrospective assessment of early absolute lymphocyte counts show high
diagnostic accuracy in patients with established pancreatic necrosis but will likely
be less robust when applied prospectively and to a larger cohort of mixed
patients with both acute interstitial and necrotizing pancreatitis who have varying
degrees of severity and presentation times.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. The title should be changed to: "Reduced lymphocyte count as an early
marker for predicting infected pancreatic necrosis"
2. How many patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis were excluded because
they presented beyond the first 48 hours from symptom onset which includes 793
patients? I am afraid you have likely enriched your study cohort with the sickest
patients as they often present early.
3. How did you define severe acute pancreatitis? If your study only focused on
necrotizing pancreatitis, then you should have no mild acute pancreatitis patients
per revised Atlanta. In addition, the liver and GI dysfunction variables are not
used to define organ failure in the revised Atlanta criteria. Similarly why are there
patients with pseudocysts if everyone included in the study has necrotizing
pancreatitis? Pseudocysts do not occur in necrotizing pancreatitis per the revised
Atlanta classification - only acute necrotic collections, and after 4 weeks,
walled-off necrosis.
4. Was the organ failure primary or secondary to infected pancreatic necrosis?
5. Your rates of acute necrotizing hypertriglyceridemic pancreatitis are higher
than I have ever seen reported in the literature. Are you sure that the
hypertriglyceridemia is not secondary to alcohol abuse?
6. There needs to be data on CTSI scores across this cohort or at least a
discription of how many patients had < or >30% necrosis on contrast enhanced
CT scans.
Minor Essential Revisions
Please have the entire manuscript reviewed for English grammar and sentence
construction.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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/s12876-015-0375-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Reduced lymphocyte count as an early marker for secondary pancreatic
infection in acute pancreatitis
Version:3Date:24 August 2015
Reviewer: Evangelos Messaris
Reviewer's report:
No further comments, text well revised and findings wll presented.
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/s12876-015-0378-z (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:The usefulness of C-reactive protein and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio for
predicting the outcome in hospitalized patients with liver cirrhosis
Version:1Date:15 July 2015
Reviewer: mehmet coban
Reviewer's report:
I have read the current manuscript with great interest. This is a well written and
conceived paper and the question posed by the authors is well defined. The
methods are appropriate and well described. The figures appear to be genuine
and I think there is not any evidence of manipulation. The discussion and
conclusions are well balanced and adequately supported by the data. The title
and abstract accurately convey what has been found.
Minor Essential Revisions:
I found only one printing error in the paper. "chornic", the last word of line 254,
should be corrected as "chronic".
As a result the writing is acceptable in my opinion.
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/s12876-015-0378-z (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:The usefulness of C-reactive protein and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio for
predicting the outcome in hospitalized patients with liver cirrhosis
Version:1Date:31 July 2015
Reviewer: David G Watt
Reviewer's report:
The authors report the use of CRP and NLR to diagnose infections and predict
outcomes in cirrhotic patients admitted to hospital. They include 184 patients and
conclude that CRP was a significant indicator of infection and elevated NLR a
poor predictor of 1 month survival.
Major Revision:
The question is defined well althought it is well known that CRP is useful in
helping predict those who will develop infection, methods appropriate, data
sound, figures genuine there are a few major revisions that need to be
addressed:
1. in the results section of abstract and manuscript the authors state the odds
ratio for CRP and the presence of SIRS to be 1.017 yet a highly significant p
value. I cant quite understand this, can they check the statistical methods?
2. The conclusions of the abstract state NLR is a poor predictor of 1 month
survival in one sentence then in the next one state CRP and NLR are good
predictors of outcomes? These 2 statements contradict each other.
3. They mention in the methods that cirrhosis was diagnosed on biopsy or on
"obvious clinical, biochemical and imaging features". They should specifically
mention what these were.
4. The study states that all the hospitalized patients were treated with empiric
broad spectrum antibiotics at admission. Surely this is a confounder to the study?
Could patients with mild SIRS have been treated and therefore their results did
not trigger a rise in CRP? I dont understand how the study can be aiming to look
at whether CRP and NLR can improve diagnostic accuracy of infection when
everyone gets antibiotics anyway, does it matter what the CRP levels were then?
They are being treated at any rate, I really struggled with this concept
5. In discussion the authors mention cirrhosis causes low WBC counts but
alcoholic cirrhosis patients can have high WBC even without infection. Therefore
how can NLR have a role? The neutrophil count can be high or low without
infection on board and therefore in my opinion in cannot be used to diagnose
infection as other parameters will alter its result. This would appear to be a major
flaw in this study
6. Did the authors look at the role of neutrophils on their own? Recent reports
have suggested that the majority of the prognostic component of the NLR come
from the neutrophil count itself.
7. Again I am confused as to the statements in the conclusion. The authors state
patients with elevated CRP and NLR should be monitored carefully for presence
of infection and considered for prompt antibiotic therapy - but are they not
already on antibiotics and therefore being treated regardless?
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/s12876-015-0374-3 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:High-definition endoscopy with digital chromoendoscopy for histologic
prediction of distal colorectal polyps
Version:2Date:16 June 2015
Reviewer: Cesare Hassan
Reviewer's report:
It is unclear whether - as they should - the authors consider proximal or
low-confidence distal polyps for scheduling the surveiulance interval. Please
clarify on this point.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
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:
none
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0374-3 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:High-definition endoscopy with digital chromoendoscopy for histologic
prediction of distal colorectal polyps
Version:2Date:17 July 2015
Reviewer: Marietta Iacucci
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
Rath et al have performed a study to assess if high definition iscan digital
chromoendoscopy can accurately predict the histology of distal diminutive
colorectal polyps according to the ASGE PIVI statement.
They have shown that digital chromoendoscopy with iscan can reliably predict
histology of distal diminutive polyps in real time according to the
recommendations of the ASGE PIVI statement
Despite the fact that the study has been performed by only one expert
endoscopist , which represents a limitation ,the manuscript is interesting and
endoscopically relevant .
It would be important to have the intra-observer agreement of the single operator.
Please provide more pictures of digital chromoendoscopy of the diminutive
polyps analyzed . It would be important to show to the readers which are the
endoscopic findings that differentiate between diminutive adenoma and
hyperplastic polyp using High Definition iscan digital chromoendoscopy.
It will also be important to highlight what is visible at iSCAN chromoendoscopy
that is not visible by white light High Definition endoscopy that enables precise
histology level classification.
.
It would be relevant in the future doing the same study with multiple experts and
endoscopists and not just expert endoscopists to assess the inter-observer
agreement and accuracy to predictive histology , interval of surveillance
colonoscopy and learning curve of diminutive distal colonic polyps using digital
chromoendoscopic modalities. It is important demonstrate in the future that digital
chromoendoscopy is as precise as as optical chromoendoscopy and dye
spraying.
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:
No
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0374-3 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:High-definition endoscopy with digital chromoendoscopy for histologic
prediction of distal colorectal polyps
Version:2Date:18 July 2015
Reviewer: Daynijela Tasic
Reviewer's report:
MAJOR COMMENTS
1) Design of study «High-definition endoscopy with digital chromoendoscopy for
histologic prediction of distal colorectal polyps» is good planed, aim of the study
is given clear, but in oreder to increase knowldge in a field of science this
Technology combined with polyp detection have been alredy described (in
Medline many articles on the topic are reported).
This paper is especially simmilar to Pigo F at all in the paper entitled i-Scan high-
definition white light endoscopy and colorectal polyps: prediction of histology,
interobserver and intraobserver agreement. Int J Colorectal
Dis.2013;28(3):399-406 .
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0374-3 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:High-definition endoscopy with digital chromoendoscopy for histologic
prediction of distal colorectal polyps
Version:3Date:24 August 2015
Reviewer: Cesare Hassan
Reviewer's report:
NA
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0374-3 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:High-definition endoscopy with digital chromoendoscopy for histologic
prediction of distal colorectal polyps
Version:3Date:4 September 2015
Reviewer: Marietta Iacucci
Reviewer's report:
Most of the points raised have been addressed satisfactorily.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0374-3 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:High-definition endoscopy with digital chromoendoscopy for histologic
prediction of distal colorectal polyps
Version:3Date:7 September 2015
Reviewer: Daynijela Tasic
Reviewer's report:
I do not have any comment about mistakes and errors i interpretation.
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.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0377-0 (2015)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Gastric cancer diagnosed after Helicobacter pylori era dication in diabetes mellitus patients  
 
Version: 1 Date: 11 Sep 2015  
 
Reviewer: P. Marco  Fisichella  
 
Reviewer ’s report:  
 
Comments addressed satisfactorily  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the futu re? 
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I  declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my  report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access C reative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0360-9 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation of the role of HLA-DR antigens in Japanese type 1 autoimmune
hepatitis
Version:2Date:8 February 2015
Reviewer: Giovanni Galati
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, Your paper is well written and concerning a very interesting aspect
of clinical hepatology, as Autoimmune Hepatitis and relationship beetween
immunogenetic phenotype HLADR4 in Japanese people.
However, the paper shows results that could not change or improve deeply the
clinical approach to this Hepatopaty. Nevertheless, studying the
immunophenotypic aspect of AIH is a developing field of interest.
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/s12876-015-0360-9 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation of the role of HLA-DR antigens in Japanese type 1 autoimmune
hepatitis
Version:2Date:29 May 2015
Reviewer: Alessandro Vitale
Reviewer's report:
This is a well written manuscript with a good statistical methodology.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
None
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0365-4 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Does the Tokyo Guidelines predict the extent of gallbladder inflammation in
patients with acute cholecystitis? A single center retrospective analysis.
Version:2Date:28 June 2015
Reviewer: David Fuks
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1/ the authors should have described the subgroup of patients with Grade I with
either gangrenous or necrotizing cholecystitis (demographics caracteristics,
blood tests and above all intraoperative data such as inflammation of hepatic
ligament or the need of conversion). They should also identify risk factor of
inaccurate evaluation.
2/ even though this information is useful in the present series, indication of early
cholecystectomy in patiens with grade III AC is questionable. The authors should
justify this policy.
Minor Essential Revisions
1/ the relationship between gallbladder inflammation analyzed by the pathologist
and technical difficulty during cholecystectomy is really unclear and should be
slightly discussed.
2/ the different secondary endpoints (including clinical outcomes) should be
analyzed not only according to TG classification but also regarding degree of
inflammation
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/s12876-015-0365-4 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Does the Tokyo Guidelines predict the extent of gallbladder inflammation in
patients with acute cholecystitis? A single center retrospective analysis.
Version:2Date:1 July 2015
Reviewer: Ferdinando Agresta
Reviewer's report:
A well done paper. The Tokyo guidelines have created some problems
concerning their raccomandations which could not be applicable in every setting
all around the world. Although retroscective, the Authors have well demonstrated
what every surgeons knows in his/her daily practice: if no contraindications to
surgery it is better to operate as soon as possible but above all they have pointed
out that the TG are not so accurate as there are supposed to be. Well done work
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' below
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0370-7 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease among coeliac disease patients
in a Hungarian coeliac centre
Version:3Date:22 March 2015
Reviewer: Peter Green
Reviewer's report:
1. Please provide information as to the referral nature of the medical center and
celiac center. Does the nature of the health care system mean that all or some of
the patients in the region seek health care from the medical center?
2. What percentage of the patients in the region, with celiac disease, or IBD,
attend your clinics? How does this number compare with known number of celiac
patients in the region?
3. If available please provide mode of presentation of the celiac disease
(classical vs non classical. Anemia , screening etc).
4. This paper confirms previous studies documenting that among patients with
celiac disease one finds some with IBD
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 no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0370-7 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease among coeliac disease patients
in a Hungarian coeliac centre
Version:3Date:16 April 2015
Reviewer: Alina Popp
Reviewer's report:
In this paper Kocsis, et al aimed to determine the prevalence of inflammatory
bowel disease in a celiac patient cohort.
The authors are proceeding using a retrospective analysis regarding 248 patients
with celiac disease (CeD).
I have the following concerns, suggestions and questions related to this paper.
1. Background:
I would recommend to exclude Table 1 completely. This Table would have a
place in a review article. I would say here is not needed. It can be written in the
text some of the most frequent/ important associated diseases, but this somehow
extended Table is not needed.
2. Methods:
Line 97: “in order to diagnose CeD, tissue transglutaminase antibody testing
(tTG….) and endomysium antibody tests were used for serology”. Please add
“and/or endomysium..” so the reader understands that either tTG or EMA was
determined at the CeD diagnosis and not both.
3. Results:
Line 117:”All the patients had serological evidence of CeD”. Please specify which
patients are you addressing at this point, if those 8 patients having both CeD and
IBD. And please clarify that the serology was positive at the time of initial
diagnosis of CeD. This is what I understood from the text, please clarify.
Figures 1,2,3 are not necessary at all. It is already very clear from the text, the
figures are not needed.
Line 126: The percentages: 25% cases having normal BMD, 50% having
osteopenia and 25% having osteoporosis. The numbers are so small, that the
percentages are not needed. It is clear form the numbers presented in the text.
4. Discussion:
Lines 162-167. This paragraph is confusing. Line 162 is telling that CeD
serological testing were performed with EMA. This is confusing: which patients
are now discussed? All CeD patients? Those 8 having also IBD? About what
moment in the evolution of this patients were this EMA test done? On line 163
-167 is then commented the potential false positivity of tTG when testing
individuals with autoimmune diseases. The reader might understand that de CeD
serology was repeated for this IBD patients and it was seroconverted positive?
What is the point of this paragraph in relation with this study, in relation with the
methods and results of this study. Please rephrase and clarify.
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/s12876-015-0372-5 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Urine neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin: a diagnostic and
prognostic marker for acute kidney injury (AKI) in hospitalized cirrhotic patients
with AKI-prone conditions.
Version:2Date:29 July 2015
Reviewer: Yuki Ohya
Reviewer's report:
In this article, the authors did prospective study to evaluate the accuracy of
uNGAL as a biomarker for the early identification of AKU in cirrhotic patients.
This is very important and interesting.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Authors compared evaluation factors between AKI and No AKI in Table 1 and
Table 2. But, authors should compare evaluation factors between uNGAL>56
ng/mL group and uNGAL<56 group ng/mL in another table. This table would be
helpful to evaluate the uNGAL as a biomarker.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Tables are very difficult to see. The format should be changed.
2. Authors are using uNGAL and UNGAL. Authors should standardize
abbreviation.
3. Because some papers reported relation increase of uNGAL and malignancy,
author should mention HCC and another malignancy.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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/s12876-015-0372-5 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Urine neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin: a diagnostic and
prognostic marker for acute kidney injury (AKI) in hospitalized cirrhotic patients
with AKI-prone conditions.
Version:2Date:5 August 2015
Reviewer: Sakkarin Chirapongsathorn
Reviewer's report:
The authors present results of an optimal cut-off level of uNGAL to explore the
diagnosing acute kidney injury and the association of 30- day liver-related
mortality. This is a well-written and organized paper. As the authors note, there
are the small number of AKI cirrhotic patients. The level of evidence from this
study may be affected by the small number of AKI cirrhosis. However, this study
came from the tertiary hospital center in Thailand and I presume all of the
subjects are Asian ethnicity that would be different from the previous study by the
Barcelona group[1] and Columbia university group[2].
Detailed Comments:
1. Abstracts & Introduction: good to go
2. Methods/ Data Abstraction: No concern
3. Results/ baseline characteristics of patients: Except infection, How many
patients in other AKI-prone conditions?
4. Table 1: I see a wide standard deviation of laboratory value such as AST and
ALT. It means that some patients had very large values for these variables. So it
may be more appropriate to use median and IQR instead.
5. Discussion: Please provide which variables or factors used for adjusting in a
multivariate logistic regression model.
Major Compulsory Revisions: none
Minor essential revisions: Please consider providing information on the number
of patients in each group of the AKI-prone conditions.
Discretionary Revisions: For laboratory values, please consider using median
and IQR instead.
Reference:
1. Barreto R, Elia C, Solà E, et al. Urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated
lipocalin predicts kidney outcome and death in patients with cirrhosis and
bacterial infections. Journal of Hepatology 2014;61:35-42.
2. Verna EC, Brown RS, Farrand E, et al. Urinary neutrophil
gelatinase-associated lipocalin predicts mortality and identifies acute kidney
injury in cirrhosis. Digestive diseases and sciences 2012;57:2362-70.
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/s12876-015-0364-5 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Excessive Intraoperative Blood Loss Independently Predicts Recurrence of
Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Liver Transplantation
Version:2Date:10 March 2015
Reviewer: Nicholas Onaca
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting study which shows a correlation of blood loss at surgery
with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) disease free survival after liver
transplantation.
Although the study is retrospective, data is robust and data analysis is
appropriate.
Most of the patients (61%) have advanced HCC at the time of transplant, being
beyond the Milan criteria.
Of note, operation time was found to be related to increased intraoperative blood
loss and labeled as a risk factor. Practically speaking, the correlation is the other
way: having more blood loss correlates with longer operative time.
The paper concludes that increased blood loss is associated with lower disease
free survival. The data, however, shows that this is applicable mostly for tumors
exceeding Milan criteria, whereas the correlation is not found for tumors within
Milan criteria.
Higher intraoperative blood loss is a composite factor which reflects worse
patient physiology in combination with technical difficulties. It alsoreflects more
manipulation of the liver at the time of hepatectomy, which is possibly reflected in
more tumor shed at that time (should be part of the discussion).
The authors use disease-free survival as their endpoint. The title states that
blood loss predicts recurrence rate. In order to sustain the statement in the title,
the authors should provide tumor recurrence data (e.g. Kaplan Meier curves
using recurrence as an endpoint).
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 with regards to this paper.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-015-0364-5 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Excessive Intraoperative Blood Loss Independently Predicts Recurrence of
Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Liver Transplantation
Version:2Date:13 June 2015
Reviewer: Matteo Ravaioli
Reviewer's report:
The paper by Liu et al reported an important series of liver transplantation for
HCC and they found a relevant prognostic role of blood loss. Patients with more
than 4 L of blood loss had a significant risk of tumor recurrence at the univariate
and multivariate analysis.
The results after liver transplantation are very poor with a high rate of HCC
recurrence (43%), which is not comparable to the other series reported. I would
suggest to perform a further analysis with the patients witout macrovascular
invasion and meeting the Milan criteria to evaluate the rate of HCC recurrence
and to confirm a prognostic role of blood loss. I believe that a minimum follow-up
of one year is necessary so I would exclude the cases with a follow-up less than
1 year.
I could not understand among the 479 cases how many were excluded because
of death within 30 days post-op. and if these cases were computed in the survival
analysis.
The other main problem to understand is the blood transfusion, which should
have a liner correlation with the blood loss. I cannot understand why the blood
loss had a prognostic role for HCC recurrence and this role was not present for
the blood loss.
I cannot find how many patients were transplanted with use of the by-pass.
The other important aspect is the pre-operative treatment over a ten years of
experience. How many patients had liver resection before? Which were the down
staging procedures for patients out of the Milan criteria? Further data are
necessary to understand the center policy, which should be adapted to reduce
the high rate of tumor recurrence after liver transplantation to a conventional rate
of 10%.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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/s12876-015-0364-5 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Excessive Intraoperative Blood Loss Independently Predicts Recurrence of
Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Liver Transplantation
Version:4Date:17 August 2015
Reviewer: Matteo Ravaioli
Reviewer's report:
The paper improved the paper but they did not follow the reviewer suggestions:
minimum follow-up of 1 year, only cases without macro-vascular invasion and
meeting the Milan criteria. I believe the results may be misleading.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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/s12876-015-0368-1 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Long-term follow-up of nonoperated patients with symptomatic gallbladder
stones : A retrospective study
Version:2Date:12 July 2015
Reviewer: Pradeep Rebala
Reviewer's report:
Regarding ethical issues
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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/s12876-015-0369-0 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Systematic review on the impact of protein in infant formula on gastric
emptying in children
Version:2Date:22 June 2015
Reviewer: Jennifer Griffin
Reviewer's report:
One article found that seems relevant but not included in this review- was it
excluded for not clarifying type of scintigraphy?
- Gastric Emptying using three different formulas in infants with
Gastroesophageal reflux. Tolia, V, et al. JPGN 1992
Abstract needs to be reviewed for writing and grammar in paragraph 1 (last
sentence) and paragraph 3 (first sentence).
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/s12876-015-0367-2 (2015)

Reviewer's report
Title:Cap-assisted Hemoclip Application with Forward-viewing Endoscope for
Hemorrhage induced by Endoscopic Sphincterotomy: A Prospective Case Series
Study
Version:1Date:11 April 2015
Reviewer: Hendrik Manner
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
thank you very much for submitting this interesting paper.
There are only minor comments.
Please discuss the insertion of a pancreatic stent before clipping in the area of
the papilla.
On the basis of only 10 cases it may only be fortune that no severe pancreatitis
has occured.
More endoscopic images would be nice if available.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest 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:
None.