JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-47 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Safety and efficacy of the immunosuppressive agent 6-tioguanine in
murine model of acute colitis
Version: 1Date:19 October 2010
Reviewer: Danyvid Olivares-Villagomez
Reviewer's report:
The paper entitled “Safety and efficacy of the immunosuppressive agent
6-tioguanine in murine model of acute colitis” by Kverka et al, asks whether
6-tioguanine (6-TG) is a safe compound to use for the treatment of acute colitis,
comparing it to other compounds, such as, azathioprine (AZA). The authors used
the well-established model of colitis induced by administration of DSS in the
drinking water. Their results indicated that treatment with 6-TG reduces the level
of colitis severity in comparison to mice treated with AZA.
Major compulsory revisions:
1. As shown in their results, AZA treatment does not ameliorate colitis in this
model. However, AZA is used to treat patients with IBD. The authors should
clarify why in their system AZA does not ameliorate disease in comparison to
PBS-treated mice.
Minor essential revisions:
None
Discretionary revisions:
1. Although the author’s used a model for acute colitis, and therefore, short
exposure to the drugs, it will be important to determine the toxicity of 6-TG in a
chronic model of colitis (which can be accomplished using various cycles of DSS)
or by increasing the amounts of 6-TG (may be 60 micrograms).
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 I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-47 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Safety and efficacy of the immunosuppressive agent 6-tioguanine in
murine model of acute and chronic colitis
Version: 3Date:15 March 2011
Reviewer: Danyvid Olivares-Villagomez
Reviewer's report:
The authors accomplished the reviewer's comments.
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-11-47 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Safety and efficacy of the immunosuppressive agent 6-tioguanine in
murine model of acute and chronic colitis
Version: 3Date:22 March 2011
Reviewer: Yuji Naito
Reviewer's report:
The authors revised it according the suggestion of us. However,in the mouse
model, they could not detect the serum levels of 6TGN, indicating the there may
be a big differences between human and mice. In addition,previous data clearly
indicate that the adverse effect of AZT and 6-tioguanine, in part, is derived from
the genetic differences of metabolic enzymes. In my opinion, this paper's
contribution for the safety/efficacy of this drug is small.
However, I agree with your final decision completely.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-47 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Safety and efficacy of the immunosuppressive agent 6-tioguanine in
murine model of acute and chronic colitis
Version: 3Date:30 March 2011
Reviewer: Silvia Melgar
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript entlitle "Safety and efficacy of the immunosuppressive
agent
6-tioguanine in murine model of acute and chronic colitis" by M. Kverka et al, is
now acceptable for publication. The authors have adequately responded to the
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.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-48 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Emergency percutaneous needle decompression for tension
pneumoperitoneum
Version: 1Date:25 February 2011
Reviewer: Yan-Shen Shan
Reviewer's report:
the paper described their experience of conservative treatment for a case of
tension pneumoperitoneum. though it is a valuable information, there exists weak
points about this manuscript.
1. the definition of tension pneumoperitoneim?
2. the diagnosis of tension pneumoperitoneum?
3. the outcome of this patient? from the text, we still can't the eitology of this
patient ?
Level of interest: An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a
scientific/medical journal
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-11-48 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Emergency percutaneous needle decompression for tension
pneumoperitoneum
Version: 1Date:26 February 2011
Reviewer: Martin Lothar L Metzelder
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer comments: BMC-Gastroenterology
„Emergency percutaneous needle decompression for tension
pneumoperitoneum.”
The authors present a case series of 11 patients presenting with abdominal
pneumoperitoneum at CT-scan, due to iatrogenic bowel perforation, of which 3
underwent emergency needle decompression for manifest tension
pneumoperitoneum. This small series could be of interest, if the authors could
add some more important information in detail.
1. It is of interest for the reader to know the symptoms or parameters to
distinguish between the need of urgent needle decompression versus
non-decompression during the preoperative course of the presented patients. A
clear definition of a tension pneumoperitoneum and a detailed description of 11
patient´s condition (such as pain scale, former abdominal operation, area and
size of bowel perforation, etc.) would help the reader to understand the process
of decision making.
2. In 3 cases of needle decompression: How do we know, which needle size
needs to be used? Was only trapped air decompressed or discharged?
3. In one case, conservative management was successful. Despite the younger
age of this patient, there is more information needed on the criteria to perform
conservative management in this case.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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' below
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-48 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Emergency percutaneous needle decompression for tension
pneumoperitoneum
Version: 2Date:29 March 2011
Reviewer: Yan-Shen Shan
Reviewer's report:
authors has revised their manuscript,
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-11-48 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Emergency percutaneous needle decompression for tension
pneumoperitoneum
Version: 2Date:31 March 2011
Reviewer: Martin Lothar L Metzelder
Reviewer's report:
I have no further recommendations.
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-11-46 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Management of esophageal stricture after complete circular endoscopic
submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 1Date:30 November 2010
Reviewer: Satoshi Ono
Reviewer's report:
This study shows effectiveness of systemic steroid administration for control of
postprocedural esophageal stricture after the complete circular ESD. This study
can be very useful for endoscopists who perform esophageal ESD. However,
there are some problems that need to be solved in the manuscript.
Major;
1. The number of patients is too small to accept in present form. Then I would
like to advice the authors that they should change the writing style of this paper
to Case report.
2. Does this manuscript focus on “effectiveness of systemic steroid
administration for control of postprocedural esophageal stricture after the
complete circular ESD” or “technical feasibility of the complete circular ESD”?
Considering the ABSTRACT, the former seems to be essential point to be
emphasized. If so, DISCUSSION including conclusion is confusing. For example,
the 4th paragraph of DISCUSSION seems to be unnecessary.
3. Description about methodology is not enough. The authors should define the
study protocol including allocation of seven patients into two groups in
METHODS. Additionally, indication for complete circular ESD is not defined
enough. Not all superficial SCCs in more than three quarters circumferential
extension require complete circular ESD. The authors should describe why they
had to perform complete circular ESD for each patient.
4. Among seven patients, two patients had sm1 lesions which might require
additional therapy. Did the authors perform additionally therapy including
radiation? If they didn’t, they have to describe why they did not perform additional
therapy. From this view point, the author should describe not only local
recurrence but also distant metastasis during the follow-up period.
Minor;
1. Do the authors perform both of plain chest X-ray and chest CT for all the
patients to check perforation? Additionally, CO2 insufflation can make it difficult
to detect perforation in these modalities. Please comment about this.
2. The authors say that they used the Fisher’s exact test, the chi-square test, the
Student’s t test, and the Mann-Whitney test for statistical analysis. However, in
RESULTS, statistical analysis is performed only to compare the numbers of
sessions of EBD in two groups. Did they use only the Student’s t test?
3. There are some mistakes in this manuscript. The authors should have the
manuscript checked by a native English speaker.
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-11-46 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Management of esophageal stricture after complete circular endoscopic
submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 1Date:4 December 2010
Reviewer: Nobuyuki Matsuhashi
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. This is an interesting observation. The sample size, however, is too small. In
addition, the analysis is retrospective. Therefore, although the manuscript is
prepared as a research article, it should be presented as a case report.
Minor Essential Revisions
2. "There have been neither nodal nor distal metastases in all patients including
the 2 patients with minimally invasive submucosal tumor." (first paragraph of
Result section): The authors have to state how the metastases were ruled out.
3. "The present study showed that ESD could provide sufficient resectability for
the superficially extended esophageal epithelial tumor. En bloc resection was
achieved in all the 7 patients, and lateral and basal margins were free from tumor
cells in each case. No local recurrence occurred with relatively short-term
follow-up periods."(the 4th paragraph in Discussion): This study does not indicate
the curability of ESD procedure in the investigated cases. The depth is reported
to be m2~sm1, and lymph node metastases, which may become apparent within
the following several years, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the above cited
sentences are inadequate, and should be deleted.
4. Quality of written English, including that in Abstract, is unacceptable. Extensive
review by a native speaker is necessary.
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 declare that I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-46 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Management of esophageal stricture after complete circular endoscopic
submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 2Date:8 January 2011
Reviewer: Satoshi Ono
Reviewer's report:
The authors revised the whole manuscript as reviewers recommended.
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-11-46 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Management of esophageal stricture after complete circular endoscopic
submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 2Date:16 January 2011
Reviewer: Nobuyuki Matsuhashi
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. The quality of written English is still unsuitable for publication. Not only
grammar, but also expression and context of the manuscript have to be
re-reviewed extensively. Re-review by another English native speaker familiar
with clinical medicine is necessary.
2. “There was a significant difference in the number of required EBD sessions
between the two treatment groups (p<0.05, Student’s t test). “ (The last
paragraph in Results section) : This sentence should be deleted, because this
report is a case report.
3. Similarly, “It is beyond the scope of this study to discuss underlying
mechanisms
whereby systemic prednisolone could control the post-ESD stricture and reduce
EBD
sessions.” (The 3rd paragraph in Discussion) and “In conclusion, complete
circular esophageal ESD was safely and successfully achieved in our small
series with the superficially extended SCC.” (The last paragraph in Discussion
section) should be changed to: “Underlying mechanisms whereby systemic
prednisolone could control the post-ESD stricture and reduce EBD sessions
remains unclear.” and ”Thus, complete circular esophageal ESD was safely and
successfully achieved in our small series with superficially extended SCC.”
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-11-45 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:The exact time of collagen peak in bile duct ligated rat model
Version: 3Date:15 December 2010
Reviewer: Martin Hennenberg
Reviewer's report:
This is an excellent and fundamental paper. The authors should be congratulated
to their finding, that fibrosis in bile duct-ligated rats is transient, i.e. reverses
spontaneously after 3 weeks. This contrasts 1) any situation in patients, where
hepatic fibrosis is progressive and irreversible, and 2) countless studies
performed by many investigators in the same animal model. In fact, it has been
assumed to date, that hepatic fibrosis in patients and animal models progresses
to cirrhosis, but does not reverse spontaneously as described in this manuscript.
Minor comments:
Title:
Please complete the missing words in the title: “… collagen peak in bile
duct-ligated rats”, instead of the current version (“.. collagen peak in bile duct
ligated”).
Probably “Time course of…”, instead of “The exact time of..…”?
Results:
4.1.: Please adapt formatting: subheading is missing!
It is hard to understand, how animals may loose or gain weight, when “there were
no significant differences between the body weights of the groups”. Please
comment.
4.5.: Please complete the missing words “The peak level of collagen was at the
[…] and of the third week and …”.
Discussion:
On p. 15, line 4-5 the authors state that recanalization of bile ducts may be a
reason for spontaneous regression of fibrosis in their animals. As this shouldn’t
occur at all in proper handling and in this animal model, this speculation should
be deleted from the discussion.
Please complete the missing references: p. 13, last paragraph; p. 14, last
paragraph.
Table 1:
Please replace the commas by dots.
Figures:
The assignment of figures to corresponding legends may be corrected. I think the
current Fig. 2 corresponds rather to the current Fig. 1b in the legends. To my
impression, this tissue resembles more to a micronodular, septic fibrosis, but less
to a secondary, biliary fibrosis/cirrhosis with strong bile duct proliferation. Thus, it
may be replaced by a more representative image. By the way, the green picture
is also very nice. Is it liver?
In the remaining figures, the use of bar diagramms may be better than the
current course diagrams. Importantly, p-values should be included in these
figures.
The manuscript may require some language editing.
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-45 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:The exact time of collagen peak in bile duct ligated rat model
Version: 3Date:28 December 2010
Reviewer: Heather Francis
Reviewer's report:
This paper is of scientific importance, but is not presented in a fashion that is
sound and understandable. The English needs to be edited significantly and
further rewriting is necessary. The discussion is merely a "review" of others
findings and not directly related to the findings of the authors. The authors do not
discuss which cell type that they feel is contributing to the increase (or decrease)
in hepatic fibrosis.
The study is limited and needs more work to be considered scientifically sound.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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-11-45 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:The exact time of collagen peak in bile duct ligated rat model
Version: 4Date:25 January 2011
Reviewer: Heather Francis
Reviewer's report:
The authors did not revise this manuscript as asked. Major language editing
MUST be performed before this can be considered. While there is importance for
the article and perhaps the experiments are sound, the article cannot be
considered as is. This was asked for in the original submission by all the
reviewers and has not been addressed.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-45 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:The exact time of collagen peak in bile duct ligated rat model
Version: 4Date:27 January 2011
Reviewer: Martin Hennenberg
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has been improved considerably.
However, some points have not been addressed and still need to be done:
Table 1:
Please replace the commas by dots.
The assignment of figures to legends needs to be urgently corrected. E.g., there
are legends for Fig. 1 to Fig. 6, but Figure 1-7 in total.
In Fig. 5-7, the authors should prefer bar diagrams instead of showing time
courses.
The discussion has been improved substantially, in particular the new conclusion
section is very fine.
However, the authors should urgently insert brief comments to following two
points:
1. The study focussed on fibrosis. As animals were sacrificed after 28, any
cirrhosis should not be expected anyway. Cirrhosis in BDL rats occurs earliest
4-6 weeks after ligation.
2. Although markers of fibrosis and liver damage declined after the 3-week peak,
they still remained elevated 4 weeks after ligation, compared to control groups.
Thus, this animal model may in fact be suitable to study fibrosis and experimental
therapies, provided that correct untreated control groups are included.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-45 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Time course of collagen peak in bile duct-ligated rats
Version: 6Date:21 March 2011
Reviewer: Martin Hennenberg
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has again improved considerably by this revision.
Indeed, all points raised previously have now been adressed.
I have no further concerns with this paper.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-45 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Time course of collagen peak in bile duct-ligated rats
Version: 6Date:21 March 2011
Reviewer: Heather Francis
Reviewer's report:
No comments - the authors have improved the manuscript greatly.
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 I have no competing interests.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-44 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:A comparison of four fibrosis indexes in chronic HCV: Development of new
fibrosis-cirrhosis index (FCI)
Version: 1Date:6 January 2011
Reviewer: Guillaume PENARANDA
Reviewer's report:
Ahmad et al. aimed to create a new fibrosis-cirrhosis index (FCI)which would be
accurate in predicting fibrosis stages in HCV infected patients, and also more
efficient than frequently used serum indexes.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1-This study suffers from a poor statistical power. Usually, a study that aim in
creating a predictive score should be separated in two data sets: an estimation
set, and a validation set. The estimation set is the one used to assess the score;
the validation set is the one used to validate that score. It is common to separate
the cohort in 2/3 - 1/3 (Estimation - Validation). This means that there would be
100 patients for estimating the model, and 57 to validate the model. That sounds
too small.
Although the authors seems aware about that (i.e. las sentence of discussion),
they should improve their study before publication.
2-It is not well defined why the authors used AAR, APRI, FI, and FIB-4 and no
others. What about Fibrotest, Fibrometer, Hepascore....?
3-Table 5: Using FCI score does not improve accuracy compared to Platelets
alone in predicting F0F1(AUC=0.932 and 0.935 respectively, sens 81% and 98%
respectively). For cirrhosis prediction, the increase is not as high as expected
compared with Platelets alone (AUC=0.996 and 0.990, and sens 86% and 81%
respectively). Again, using a validation set would give the real power of the FCI
score.
Minor Essential Revisions
1-Table 4: Please give the Odds Ratio [95% CI] for each variables.
Discretionary Revisions
1-authors considered a p-value of 0.005 to be significant. Why did they used a
such small cut-off ? (Usually the commonly p of 0.05 is used).
2-Authors should changed the reporting of p-values all over the manuscript and
tables; replace p=0.000 with p=0.000x or p<0.005 (or p<0.05 ??).
3-Table 2: Replace Sig with P value
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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-11-44 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:A comparison of four fibrosis indexes in chronic HCV: Development of new
fibrosis-cirrhosis index (FCI)
Version: 2Date:15 March 2011
Reviewer: Guillaume PENARANDA
Reviewer's report:
I read with interest the authors responses on the comments that have arisen from
my first review of the manuscript.
As I already commented in my previous review, this study suffers from the
absence of a validation cohort. But in the light of the authors’ responses, I
recommend publication of this manuscript, taking into account that this study
must be validated on an independent cohort.
Minor Essential Revision
Table 4: Odds ratio still doesn’t appear in the table. Only the 95% CI are shown
in table. Please insert OR before final acceptance.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-11-44 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:A comparison of four fibrosis indexes in chronic HCV: Development of new
fibrosis-cirrhosis index (FCI)
Version: 2Date:17 March 2011
Reviewer: Ned Snyder
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
The authors have adequately addressed my concerns in questions 1,2,4, and 5.
In question 3, I expressed my concern about the relatively high mean values for
the APRI and FIB-4 in Fo-F1 patients as compared to previous reports. While the
authors usefully reply that this has been reported in other studies from the region,
I do not follow their statement that this might reflect "geographical variation in the
seroprevalence of HCV". This needs to be clarified or omitted.
Minor Essential Revisions:Inthe formula for the FIB-4 the ALT is to the 1/2 power
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-11-43 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Is hepatotropic contrast enhanced MR a more effective method in
differential diagnosis of hemangioma than multi-phase CT and unenhanced MR?
Version: 1Date:6 September 2010
Reviewer: herve trillaud
Reviewer's report:
General Comment
This study shows that Gd-BOPTA has no interest for the characterization of
hepatic hemangiomas compared with T2-weighted sequence. The result is
important but the presentation is sometimes confusing and should be reviewed.
Some of the data in the materials and methods section are part of the results.
The distribution of groups with the number of patients is unclear. The discussion
must be shortened. The English language shall be reviewed
Abstract:
In conclusion add unenhanced MR imaging is the method of choice in
discriminating…..
Introduction :
- I do not agree with the authors: A lot of papers in the literature have
demonstrated that Contrast enhanced US examination allows characterisation of
HH in most case.
- I do not understand why the authors say that it is necessary to introduce
diagnostic procedure based on new organ specific contrast agent because they
demonstrate the opposite in this paper
- Changes “radiographic characteristic” by “imaging characteristic” for MR
imaging
- The purpose is not clear and could be rewritten: The purpose of this study is to
evaluate whether the MR imaging characterisation of focal liver lesion can be
improved using Gd-BOBTA and to compare with contrast-enhanced multiphase
CT.
Materials and Methods
- What are the inclusion and exclusion criteria of this prospective study?
- What are the criteria for non specific hepatic mass observed in US?
- The presentation is confused with some of the data that should be in the section
materials and methods. 161 patients and then 398 focal liver lesions with
diagnosis for some of them and other non specific mass??
- What are the diagnosis criteria used for image analysis?
Results
- This sample of patients is unusual with very little patient with hemangioma
hypointense on T2
- There is too much tables.
Discussion
- The discussion is too long and may be shortened
References:
No comments
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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-43 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Is hepatotropic contrast enhanced MR a more effective method in
differential diagnosis of hemangioma than multi-phase CT and unenhanced MR?
Version: 2Date:22 November 2010
Reviewer: Takamichi Murakami
Reviewer's report:
The authors has revised their manuscript according to the reviewer’s
suggestions.
I hope that the authors consider my comments, as mentioned below, to improve
the paper.
Abstract
1, Background
“Gd-BOPTA” should be spelled out.
2, Background
“The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether diagnostic accuracy of hepatic
hemangiomas in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves…” should be
changed to “The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether diagnostic accuracy
of hepatic Hemangiomas, showing atypical hyperechoic pattern on grey-scale
US, in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves..”.
Introduction
3, The last paragraph, “The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether
assessment of hepatic hemangiomas MRI improves with ….” should be changed
to “The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether assessment of hepatic
hemangiomas, with atypical appearance in US, MRI improves with ….”.
Materials and Methods
4, Page 4, the second paragraph. “The latter characterized by typical
hyperechoic oval pattern with homogeneous or slightly inhomogeneous
echotexture, well-defined margins and posterior wall shadowing.” This is a
characteristic finding of hemangioma. The authors should also clarify the atypical
US findings of hemangioma included in this study.
5, Page 6, the 4th paragraph. “Statistical analysis concerning evaluation of
hemangiomas and malignant lesions in unenhanced, gadolinium-enhanced MR
and CT studies”. The authors should clearly state what they compared
statistically.
Results
6, Page 8, “Unenhanced MR and Gd-BOPTA-enhanced MR show higher
diagnostic efficacy in differentiation of hemangiomas than CT
(p<0,000114,…….”. What is “diagnostic efficacy”? Detection sensitivity?
Diagnostic accuracy? As I said in the comment 5, The authors should clearly
state what they compared statistically.
Discussion
7, Page 12, “Gd-BOPTA-enhanced MR in comparison with unenhanced MRI
does not improve diagnostic efficacy in discriminating hemangiomas that show
non-specific appearance in ultrasound examination.” The authors should clarify
what is “diagnostic efficacy” and what is “non-specific appearance in ultrasound
examination.?
Figures
8, The authors should also show US images with atypical appearance of the
three cases (case of Fig1,3,4, Fig 2, and Fig 5) .
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, 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-11-43 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Is hepatotropic contrast enhanced MR a more effective method in
differential diagnosis of hemangioma than multi-phase CT and unenhanced MR?
Version: 2Date:1 December 2010
Reviewer: herve trillaud
Reviewer's report:
The authors have revised the paper following my comments. The manuscript is
improved and I have no other comment.
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-11-43 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Is hepatotropic contrast enhanced MR a more effective method in
differential diagnosis of hemangioma than multi-phase CT and unenhanced MR?
Version: 3Date:5 March 2011
Reviewer: Takamichi Murakami
Reviewer's report:
The authors have revised their manuscript well according to my suggestions.
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-11-42 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:A prospective, multi center, randomized clinical study to compare the
efficacy and safety of Ertapenem 3 days versus Ampicillin-Sulbactam 3 days in
the treatment of localized community acquired intra-abdominal infections. (T.E.A.
Study: Three days Ertapenem vs three days Ampicillin-Sulbactam)
Version: 2Date:28 December 2010
Reviewer: Greger Lindberg
Reviewer's report:
The authors have substantially improved their protocol. The overall design and
outcome measures are now better described. However, some problems yet
remain:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The primary response variable is now defined as "To compare the failure rate
of short therapy with Ertapenem and with AS in localized IAI". Please specify the
meaning of failure rate here. Is it "failure" + "late failure" (according to definitions
given in Data collection) or is it "failure" only? If it is "failure" only, why isn't "late
failure" a secondary end-point?
2. The information about the efficacy of AS on that the authors have determined
the sample size should be included in the protocol. If this was a retrospective
analysis of 300 cases in their department this needs to be mentioned as a source
for the estimated failure rate of 30%.
3. The manuscript still needs a thorough linguistic revision. There are numerous
syntax errors, inappropriate use of definite article, and past or present tense
when future tense should be used.
Minor Essential Revisions
4. The abstract should include information about the primary end-point, therapy
in the two treatment arms, and their duration. The trial registration number and
the appropriate web site should be included instead of the text "TRIAL
REGISTRATION NUMBER".
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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-11-42 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:A prospective, multi center, randomized clinical study to compare the
efficacy and safety of Ertapenem 3 days versus Ampicillin-Sulbactam 3 days in
the treatment of localized community acquired intra-abdominal infections. (T.E.A.
Study: Three days Ertapenem vs three days Ampicillin-Sulbactam)
Version: 3Date:24 March 2011
Reviewer: Greger Lindberg
Reviewer's report:
The authors have altered their manuscript according to suggestions and I have
no further questions or comments.
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-11-41 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Transient elastography for predicting esophageal/gastric varices in children
with biliary atresia
Version: 1Date:30 January 2011
Reviewer: giada Sebastiani
Reviewer's report:
MAJOR COMPULSORY REVISIONS
The study by Chongsrisawat et al deals with non-invasive detection of
oesophageal varices in children by transient elastography and simple serum
biomarkers. This is an interesting topic and there is not a lot of literature about it.
However, I have some major concerns that the authors should address.
- splenomegaly was detected with physical examination. Was this then confirmed
with abdominal ultrasound? If so, also ultrasound results should be included in
the results and in the methods.
- RESULTS: this section is very limited and it should be expanded. For example,
more data about the performance of the methods (transient elastography and
serum markers) must be included. Predictive values, accuracy, likelihood ratios
must be included. The authors should also comment on the predictive values
since the area under the ROC curve has not much value in clinical practice. A
very high negative predictive value could be very useful to exclude children who
need an endoscopy. Also refer to a recent study (Sebastiani et al, J Hepatol
2010), that is one of the largest about chronic liver diseases, that has developed
an algorithm based on simple non-invasive test. Maybe the authors could apply
some of these simple and cheap tests. Moreover, they should propose an
algorithm based on their results to be used in clinical practice. Also a cost-benefit
analysis should be included accordingly. Finally, the area under the ROC curve
should be used especially to define cut-off of the markers that could have high
predictive values to rule-out or rule-in oesophageal varices. Unfortunately, all this
analysis is lacking and the present data are insufficient. The above mentioned
results should also be carefully commented 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: 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-11-41 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Transient elastography for predicting esophageal/gastric varices in children
with biliary atresia
Version: 1Date:5 February 2011
Reviewer: Seok Joo Han
Reviewer's report:
1.The authors mentioned that the splenomegaly on physical examination would
be a useful screening tool for predicting of esophageal and gastric varices.
However, there is no scientific definition of splenomegaly in manuscript. I think
that they should define the splenomegaly with more detail and objective
terminology before using the data of splenomegaly.
2. In 'reference 26, the sensitivity of splenomegaly is 97.7%, but the specificity is
just up 26.8 percent. However, in this study, the sensitivity 92% and specificity
85% of splenomegaly is 92 and 85%, respectively. How could authors get such
good results? What is thee reason of such good result?
3. The number of patients with splenomegaly in Table 1 (39 patients) is different
from the number of result section (44 patients).
4. In the second sentence of methods, “esophageal/gastric varices’ should be
replaced with its abbreviation such as EV/GV.
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' below
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-41 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Transient elastography for predicting esophageal/gastric varices in children
with biliary atresia
Version: 2Date:23 March 2011
Reviewer: giada Sebastiani
Reviewer's report:
I think the authors have now addressed the major concerns of their study. The
manuscript looks improved.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-11-41 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Transient elastography for predicting esophageal/gastric varices in children
with biliary atresia
Version: 2Date:24 March 2011
Reviewer: Seok Joo Han
Reviewer's report:
No further comments
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' below
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-11-40 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Overweight and constipation in adolescents
Version: 1Date:6 April 2010
Reviewer: Jonathan E Teitelbaum
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
The tables appear to missing 2 patients. Tables 3 and 4 state 2 patients were
eliminated due to incomplete data, and I assume that these 2 patients were the
same for both tables. However if one was to add up all the patients from the 2
tables: No constipation (117 + 757), + yes constipation (17 + 161) + yes fecal
escape (10+15)=1077 whereas the total patients in the study was 1081. the
authors need to account for the 4 missing patients
- Minor Essential Revisions
1. The authors should comment on whether the fecal escape could be related to
poor hygiene rather than true encopresis/overflow. One could certainly imagine
that more obese patients may have a more difficult time with hygiene.
- Discretionary Revisions
Consider adding the following recent references that relate to the study:
a. Teitelbaum JE, Sinha P, Micale M, Yeung S, Jaeger J. Obesity is related to
multiple functional abdominal diseases. J Pediatr. 2009 Mar;154(3):444-6.
b. Pourhoseingholi MA, Kaboli SA, Pourhoseingholi A, Moghimi-Dehkordi B,
Safaee A, Mansoori BK, Habibi M, Zali MR. Obesity and functional constipation:
a community-based study in Iran. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2009
Jun;18(2):151-5.
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-11-40 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Overweight and constipation in adolescents
Version: 1Date:23 July 2010
Reviewer: Stefan A Mueller-Lissner
Reviewer's report:
This is an epidemiologic study in adolescents between the ages of 10 and 18
based on a questionnaire survey on stool habits and body weight. The authors
cross-tabulated constipation and BMI. A correlation was only found when
restricting the analysis to subjects with “fecal escape”.
Major Compulsory Revisions
o I do not understand what “fecal escape” means. The term is not listed in
PubMed. Is it fecal incontinence? Or fecal soiling (a condition well known in
children between the ages of 2 and 5 retaining their stools)?
o A major problem of the manuscript is the complete lack of precise definitions.
When exactly was constipation thought to be present? Was it hard
consistency/form AND difficult defecation AND low frequency? Or only one or
two of them? Had these symptoms to be present on each occasion or only on
certain circumstances? Why did the authors not follow the Rome criteria giving
practical and internationally accepted guidelines for the definition?
o Bleeding should not be considered a symptom defining constipation (even if it
may be caused by hard stools).
o Again I have to come to “fecal escape”. If it is soiling than one would ask how it
was defined. If it was e.g. defined by stained underwear than I would easily
understand that overweight children may have more problems cleaning their
anus and hence having this symptom. It would however not be related to
constipation.
o Potential confounders were not taken into account such as nutrition and
physical activity.
Minor essential Revisions
o Page 9, last paragraph. It is very unusual to give a median (non-parametric)
with standard deviation (parametric).
o Abstract 7th line. “Characterized” should probably read “defined”?
o Page 4, 8th line. What is an “adolescent article”, what do you mean by
“exclusivity”?
o Multiple statistical tests were performed without adjusting the level of
significance.
o The English needs thorough improvement.
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-11-40 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Overweight and constipation in adolescents
Version: 3Date:5 February 2011
Reviewer: Jonathan E Teitelbaum
Reviewer's report:
I feel the authors have adequately addressed my concerns/queries
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-11-40 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Overweight and constipation in adolescents
Version: 3Date:17 February 2011
Reviewer: Stefan A Mueller-Lissner
Reviewer's report:
none
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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 10.1186/1471-230X-11-39 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Applicability and precautions of use of liver injury biomarker FibroTest. A
reappraisal at 7 years of age.
Version: 4Date:19 February 2011
Reviewer: giada Sebastiani
Reviewer's report:
The study of Poynard and colleagues is based on a very large database of
Fibrotest done over a period of 7 years. The main concept of the paper is to
characterize the causes of false positive-false negative and the overall
applicability of this non-invasive marker of liver fibrosis. The study is well
conducted and interesting. I have few minor concerns.
1) the interval between Fibrotest and liver biopsy was up to 5 years. This seems
to me a very general and even too large interval. The authors should clarify in
how many cases the interval was more than 1 year, as liver fibrosis situation may
have been evolved.
2) the reference standard could also been liver stiffness measurement. In how
many cases the reference standard was indeed LSM? The authors should add in
the methods the precautions according to the manufacturer to have a reliable
result with liver stiffness measurement.
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-11-39 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Applicability and precautions of use of liver injury biomarker FibroTest. A
reappraisal at 7 years of age.
Version: 5Date:12 March 2011
Reviewer: giada Sebastiani
Reviewer's report:
The authors have now addressed the main concerns about their study. In my
view, no other revision is needed.
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-11-39 (2011)

Reviewer's report
Title:Applicability and precautions of use of liver injury biomarker FibroTest. A
reappraisal at 7 years of age.
Version: 5Date:20 March 2011
Reviewer: jerome boursier
Reviewer's report:
The authors answered well to the different reviewers's comments, so the revised
manuscript can be accepted for publication.
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