JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-12-61 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Diet in subjects with irritable bowel syndrome: a cross-sectional study in
the general population
Version: 2Date:2 May 2012
Reviewer: Filippo Cremonini
Reviewer's report:
No further revision needed for me
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-12-61 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Diet in subjects with irritable bowel syndrome: a cross-sectional study in
the general population
Version: 2Date:4 May 2012
Reviewer: Jacqueline Barrett
Reviewer's report:
I am satisfied that the authors have amended the paper in line with requested
revisions.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-12-61 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Diet in subjects with irritable bowel syndrome: a cross-sectional study in
the general population
Version: 2Date:8 May 2012
Reviewer: Liz Williams
Reviewer's report:
No major revisions needed.
Minor essential revisions:
ON page 4 under 'Assessments' the authors state that ...'The Oslo Health Study,
which was translated from Norweigian to English'. Presumably the volunteers
completed the Norwegian version? This needs clarification.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-12-62 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Inter-relationships between the economic and emotional consequences of
colorectal cancer for patients and their families: a qualitative study
Version: 1Date:29 August 2011
Reviewer: Martha Mohler
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
The methods are not well described- please incorporate the criteria included in
COREQ--a 32-item checklist—reporting important aspects of the research team,
study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations with
the rigor expected in such a study. This is worth publishing, but your methods
section is lacking in rigor.
Minor Essential Revisions
None
Discretionary Revisions
none
Statistical review
Is it essential that this manuscript be seen by an expert statistician?
- No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. However it would
benefit from a more rigorous inclusion of qualitative methodology ( e.g., Tong A,
Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research
(COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health
Care 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57. PMID: 17872937) The criteria included in
COREQ--a 32-item checklist—could help this research team to report important
aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings,
analysis and interpretations with the rigor expected in such a study.
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-12-62 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Inter-relationships between the economic and emotional consequences of
colorectal cancer for patients and their families: a qualitative study
Version: 2Date:8 May 2012
Reviewer: Martha Mohler
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-12-59 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Spontaneous good outcome of severe diarrhoea and pseudotumoral
abdominal mass related to mesocolic panniculitis: Case report
Version: 1Date:19 January 2012
Reviewer: Efsevia Vakiani
Reviewer's report:
This report describes a case of mesocolic panniculitis that improved without
immunosuppressive therapy. In general the report is well written (flow and
concepts discussed are good, though some mistakes in language use need to be
corrected).
Major compulsory revisions
1. The authors talk about the importance of histological examination in
establishing the diagnosis, but do not provide any histology images. The case
report would be significantly strengthened by addition of images from the biopsy
of the mesocolic mass and also the mucosal biopsies showing ischemic colitis.
2. At the end of page 7 the authors briefly bring up IgG4-related retroperitoneal
fibrosis. The way it is discussed is a little confusing - admittedly the published
literature to date has contributed to that confusion. Although it is true that some
authors have grouped mesenteric panniculits and IgG4-related firbosis in one
catergory, it is becoming apparent that they are distinct in their pathogenesis. My
recommendation would be for the authors to discuss IgG4-related retroperitoneal
fibrosis as a distinct entity that is part of the differential diagnosis.
3. Table 1. The term lymphosarcoma is old and should not be used. The authors
should also list carcinomatosis (which is mentioned in the text) as well as
IgG4-related retroperitoneal fibrosis. "Infections" diseases should also be
corrected to "infectious diseases".
Minor revisions
There are some spelling mistakes and incorrect word uses that should be
corrected. Below are some examples
1. Page 3 "requires the achievement of a histological analysis confirmation"
sounds awkward. Please re-write.
2. Page 4 "a celioscopy was decided" also sounds awkward. "... a celioscopy
was performed" sounds better.
3. Pag4 Diverticules should be diverticula.
4. Page 6 "until 92%" should be "up to 92%".
5. Page 6 "meso diseases" - please rephrase. Maybe diseases affecting the
mesocolon.
6. Page 6 desmoid tumor, not desmoids tumor. Also the dots need to be
removed.
7. Page 7 "vascularitis" should be vasculitis.
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-12-59 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Spontaneous good outcome of severe diarrhoea and pseudotumoral
abdominal mass related to mesocolic panniculitis: Case report
Version: 1Date:22 March 2012
Reviewer: Hassan Baydoun
Reviewer's report:
No major compulsory revision needed
Minor essential revisions: there is missing labels on the figures
Discretionary Revisions: avoid repetitions
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-12-59 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Spontaneous resolution of severe, symptomatic mesocolic panniculitis: a
case report
Version: 2Date:26 April 2012
Reviewer: Efsevia Vakiani
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed all concerns and 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 I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-12-60 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:The Gastrointestinal Electrical Mapping Suite (GEMS): Software for
analyzing and visualizing gastrointestinal multi-electrode recordings
Version: 2Date:8 September 2011
Reviewer: porkumaran p karantharaj
Reviewer's report:
Comment:
1. Organization of paper by the author is good.
2. Using the GEMS software representing the result with high resolution mapping
is good
3. The intensity & quality of the following images could be improved - Figure 1,
Figure 2, Figure 4 & Figure 5
4. Algorithms are more theoretical
5. The importance of velocity and amplitude calculation could be explained more
clearly
6. The statistical data could be added and analyzed for the results
7. The download link given in the additional files is not working properly and
author is requested to make the link active and achieve b y every one
Observation:
• No information is found about figure 5
• There is no information of High resolution electrical mapping
• Algorithm are not explained in detail to understand
• Advantage of Clustering algorithm is not mentioned
• There is no clear information from the activation time detection
• This paper represents the Manual to use the software [GEMS] for analysis
• It is somewhat difficult to understand what author like to publish using GEMS
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:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-12-60 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:The Gastrointestinal Electrical Mapping Suite (GEMS): Software for
analyzing and visualizing high-resolution (multi-electrode) recordings in
spatiotemporal detail
Version: 3Date:2 March 2012
Reviewer: Gloria Millaray Curilem
Reviewer's report:
- Minor Essential Revisions
I suggest to eliminate the Conclusions section, as it provides no further
information and to entitle the “Discussion” section as “Discussion and
conclusions”.
page 3, first line: it is said: “designed to be being used by non-experts in
data and signal processing,”, I suggest “designed to be used by non-experts
in…”
Fist line of page 12, it is said: “The default method for velocity field
calculation in GEMS is a finite difference approach that incorporates added
interpolation and Gaussian filter smoothing functions [15].” I think that the
word “added” should be eliminated.
Fist line of table 1: It is said: “Reduce baseline wander and high-frequency
noise from signals.” I suggest using the word “drift” instead of “wander”…
I suggest changing the section title: “Qualitative Validation and Case
Example” by “System application” and to comment how this contributes to a
qualitative validation in the discussion section. This because one application
cannot be considered as a validation per se… I suggest to emphasize in the
discussion the quantitative and qualitative validation of the porposed system.
In the second paragraph of the Discussion section of page 19: “The most
significant value of GEMS is that it allows for substantial gains in
efficiency and productivity, by automating laborious functions and
quantitative analyses that must otherwise be performed manually.” I suggest
referencing Table 1.
- Discretionary Revisions
In the last paragraph of page 3 it is said that: “This method involves the
placement of spatially-dense arrays of many electrodes over a gut segment,...”.
Is the system able to process electrogastrographical signals that come from
cutaneous electrodes? Did you test this?
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-12-58 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Unsedated Peroral Wireless pH Capsule Placement vs. Standard pH
Testing: A Randomized Study and Cost Analysis
Version: 2Date:3 March 2012
Reviewer: Stefan Öberg
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
1. Discussion, first paragraph. The authors conclude that their study “confirms
that WC insertion is better tolerated than SC both overall and during placement”.
However, the study design does not allow the authors to make this conclusion as
this would require that all subjects underwent both tests in a cross-over study
design. The conclusion needs to be changed.
2. Statistics: Data obtained from VAS scales are usually not normally distributed.
The authors chose to assess differences in discomfort levels using means and
the Student t-test. If the data was normally distributed this needs to be stated and
if not, non-parametric statistical analysis should be used.
3. Most, if not all patients who undergo esophageal pH monitoring also undergo
an upper GI endoscopy. How many patients in the ESM+SC and ESM+WC
groups had an endoscopy shortly before or after the pH-study. As it is the total
cost for investigating symptoms suggestive of GERD that is of interest, the cost
of this additional endoscopy needs to be included in the analysis.
4. The analysis of the costs of the different strategies is based on more or less
well-documented assumptions that are regarded as facts in the statistical
analysis. This is a limitation of the study that needs to be mentioned in the
discussion.
5. Studies on adverse symptoms of pH monitoring has previously been
performed by other groups. The observations of these studies should be
mentioned and compared with the result of the present study.
6. Discussion, second paragraph. The two last sentences needs to be deleted as
efforts to validate the accuracy of the conversion factor was not made in the
present study.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. In the first paragraph of the Introduction it is stated that ambulatory
esophageal pH monitoring is the gold standard for establishing the diagnosis of
GERD. However, the diagnostic accuracy of esophageal pH monitoring is
relatively low and therefore no gold standard.
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-12-56 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Hormone Replacement Therapy is associated with Gastro-Oesophageal
Reflux Disease: a retrospective cohort study
Version: 1Date:25 October 2011
Reviewer: Sachin Wani
Reviewer's report:
The authors Close et al have explored the association of HRT and GORD in
menopausal women using validated general practice records from the UK. The
authors report that oestrogen only use was associated with GORD and PPI
usage.
Strengths:
- Well written manuscript
- Use of large well defined and validated database
- Large number of patients
Comments:
Major:
1. The proportion of missing data for important variables associated with GORD
(as the authors note in the introduction) is unacceptably high (41% for smoking
and 43% for BMI). This prevented the final model to account for these factors.
This should be discussed further.
2. The definition of GORD is suspect. Was this based only on the diagnostic
code - gastro-oesophageal reflux? Please clarify. It should be acknowledged that
this is an inadequate method to capture patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux.
Lack fo standardization of GORD recording as acknowledged by the authors is a
major limitation.
3. Also it is unclear what classifies as GORD vs. gastro-oesophageal reflux
symptoms? How did the authors account for this? This should be discussed
further.
4. Limitations section should be included in the manuscript.
5. How many patients underwent endoscopy in this cohort? How many had
erosive esophagitis or other complications of GORD? Were those codes
included?
6. Basic limitations of any retrospective cohort study such as selection bias and
inability to explore temporal associations should be provided. This is especially
true due to large proportion of missing data on important confounding variables.
7. It is also unclear if PPI usage was factored into the adjusted analysis for
GORD outcomes between HRT users and non users.
Minor:
Figure 1 not available for review
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-12-56 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Hormone Replacement Therapy is associated with Gastro-Oesophageal
Reflux Disease: a retrospective cohort study
Version: 1Date:10 November 2011
Reviewer: Tommy Lee
Reviewer's report:
Congratulations on a well written paper with some interesting statistical analysis.
While I appreciate the authors' attempt at clarifying an important question relation
to HRT and GORD, there are significant limitations in their study, which I think
bear further discussion.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
The weaknesses primarily stem around the definition of GORD and the use of
PPI prescription status:
1. GORD is often over-diagnosed and I am not convinced that this data is
providing a true estimation of the incidence of GORD in the population. Not
having standardized diagnostic criteria for GORD is a significant weakness,
especially considering how subjective GORD symptoms are, and how much they
overlap with dyspepsia and other gastric or esophageal pathology.
2. Similarly PPI use is not a reliable metric, as PPIs are not only generally
over-prescribed, but are also used to treat non-GORD conditions including peptic
ulcer disease, laryngopharyngeal reflux, and other forms of dyspepsia.
3. In addition, while the statistics are impressive, they could be focused more so
that it is clearer to the reader what the most relevant and important findings are.
Why are significant findings only occurring in certain analyses (univariate vs
adjusted etc.)? Can they comment further on this?
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 declare that I have no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-12-56 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Hormone Replacement Therapy is associated with Gastro-Oesophageal
Reflux Disease: a retrospective cohort study
Version: 2Date:27 January 2012
Reviewer: Tommy Lee
Reviewer's report:
Once again very well-written. I appreciate your responses to our initial critique.
Just a couple of very minor revisions:
1) "ppi-use" on page 7 should be properly capitalized as it is elsewhere in the
paper.
2) What is the "MRC" mentioned on page 4?
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 10.1186/1471-230X-12-56 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Hormone Replacement Therapy is associated with Gastro-Oesophageal
Reflux Disease: a retrospective cohort study
Version: 2Date:21 February 2012
Reviewer: Sachin Wani
Reviewer's report:
No changes recommended. All questions have been answered.
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-12-55 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Risk of inflammatory bowel disease following a diagnosis of irritable bowel
syndrome
Version: 2Date:20 December 2011
Reviewer: Jason Hou
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed all of the concerns raised in prior comments.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
none
Minor essential Revisions:
pg 6: The authors should consider using the term "indeterminate colitis" instead
of idiopathic colitis.
Discretionary Revisions:
The authors explain in great detail in the cover letter response to the original
comments, in particular in regards to the IBS diagnosis and exclusive use of
DOD of active military which could be included in the manuscript for readers in
greater detail if room allows.
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-12-53 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Truncated LEF-1 is one of the key regulators in the growth of colon
carcinoma
Version: 3Date:14 November 2011
Reviewer: Andrew Quest
Reviewer's report:
Revision of resubmitted manuscript
The authors addressed many of my previous comments in a satisfactory fashion
with the exception of those concerning Figures 2 and 6 (see below)
My previous comment to Figure 2 was: Cells are compared after analysis of the
cell cycle by flow cytometry. Rather surprisingly, no increments in the sub G0/G1
population are detected for both the SW480-dL and HT29-dL cells. This would be
expected based on the result shown in Figure 3 where an increase in Annexin-V
positive cells is observed for both these cell lines. The authors need to provide
an explanation for this discrepancy and preferably should include the percentage
cells in sub G0/G1 in the analysis shown in Figure 2.
The authors responded that they had quantified the flow cytometry data and
observed significant increases in G0/G1. However, my question related to the
SUB G0/G1 population that would be expected since it is indicative of apoptosis.
Accumulation in G0/G1 alone is more indicative of cell cycle arrest.
With respect to Figure 6, I commented that the authors should evaluate whether
reduced tumor vascularization observed for cells expressing the LEF-1-dL variant
is also significantly reduced in tumors of the same size.
The authors responded that in fact the tumors were of the same size and were
analyzed 15 days after subcutaneous injection of cells. However, in Figure 6A
the authors show and claim that tumors were of different sizes after 15 days.
Incidentally, this statement also contrasts with data shown in panel 6C where
tumors of appreciable volumen were not really detectable until after 20 days.
The authors have changed the title. However, no evidence is provided indicating
that LEF-1 variants are “key” regulators. Changes in many molecules will induce
similar changes.
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-12-53 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:The balance between two isoforms of LEF-1 is a regulator in the growth of
colon carcinoma
Version: 4Date:8 February 2012
Reviewer: Andrew Quest
Reviewer's report:
As indicated previously, the authors addressed many of my previous comments
in a satisfactory fashion with the exception of those concerning Figures 2 and 6.
In this second revision these points were addressed again.
Previous review: The authors responded that they had quantified the flow
cytometry data and observed significant increases in G0/G1. However, my
question related to the SUB G0/G1 population that would be expected since it is
indicative of apoptosis. Accumulation in G0/G1 alone is more indicative of cell
cycle arrest.
The authors now provide a possible explanation that should be included in the
discussion.
With respect to Figure 6, I commented that the authors should evaluate whether
reduced tumor vascularization observed for cells expressing the LEF-1-dL variant
is also significantly reduced in tumors of the same size.
The authors did this analysis and found differences that were not statistically
signifcant. This is now stated in the manuscript. However, with this finding, the
consequence of changes in expression of Lef-1 variants in vivo remains unclear.
The title was changed but is not readily understandable as is.
The balance between two isoforms of LEF-1 is a regulator in the growth of colon
carcinoma
Should perhaps be changed to
The balance between two isoforms of LEF-1 regulates colon carcinoma growth
Sections added to this manuscript need to be revised 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: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
no competing interests
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-12-54 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Palm Vitamin E Reduces Catecholamines, Xanthine Oxidase Activity and
Gastric Lesions in Rats Exposed To Water-Immersion Restraint Stress
Version: 1Date:21 November 2011
Reviewer: Lori A Coburn
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions – None related to the basic scientific procedures
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Please describe why the dose of palm vitamin E and alpha-tocopherol was
chosen to be 60mg/kg a day? Why was it given for 28 days prior to stress? How
does this dose relate to the amount present in the regular diet?
2. Olive oil was given as the vehicle – olive oil does contain some vitamin E –
approx. 1.6mg per tablespoon – it is not clear how much olive oil was given every
day though it was likely a small amount.
3. In the abstract – “Sixty male Sprague-Dawley rats (200-250g) were randomly
divided into four equal sized groups.” – should be three equal sized groups.
4. “Although tocopherol is well known to be the most abundant and active form of
vitamin E, but recently the role of tocotrienols has received renewed attention.” It
may be the most studied though I am not sure if it can be said to the most
abundant.
5. Page 8 – “We had previously reported that the increase in the noradrenalin
level was blocked in rats given TT supplementation but not in rats receiving #-TF”
define TT. Why was TT used in the prior experiments and palm vitamin E in this
experiment?
6. The references do not all have the same formatting – eg #5 – bold and italics
missing
7. I would recommend the authors work to clarify some of the English syntax in
the manuscript
Discretionary Revisions
1. Representative photographs of the gastric mucosal lesions would be helpful to
supplement Figure 1.
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-12-54 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Palm Vitamin E Reduces Catecholamines, Xanthine Oxidase Activity and
Gastric Lesions in Rats Exposed To Water-Immersion Restraint Stress
Version: 1Date:22 November 2011
Reviewer: Fang Yan
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, the authors studied effects of Palm vitamin E (PVE) and
#-tocopherol (#-TF) supplementation on gastric lesions in rats exposed to
water-immersion restraint
stress. The results from these experiments showed that supplementations with
either PVE or #-TF reduced gastric lesions, inhibited stress induced elevation of
adrenalin and noradrenalin in the blood and decreased xanthine oxidase and
dehydrogenase activities in the stomach.
Major revisions;
1. All of these effects were detected immediately after rats were exposed to
stress. Does the stress induce sever gastric injury at later time point, compared
to that occurring immediately after injury? The authors need to test the effects of
PVE and #-TF on gastric injury in more than one time point.
2. A brief explanation method should be added to the figure legend, which will
help the readers to understand the data from these experiments.
3. Histology of gastric tissues should be assessed to address the gastric injury.
4.Other cellular responses in the gastric tissues that are related to decreased
gastric injury should be detected to support the protective effects of PVE and
#-TF.
5. PVE and #-TF may have direct protective roles in the gastric tissue. What is
the mechanism of reduction of adrenalin and noradrenalin in blood by PVE and
#-TF?
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-12-54 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Palm Vitamin E Reduces Catecholamines, Xanthine Oxidase Activity and
Gastric Lesions in Rats Exposed To Water-Immersion Restraint Stress
Version: 2Date:7 March 2012
Reviewer: Lori A Coburn
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed the specific points raised in the initial review.
However, there are still multiple areas throughout the manuscript where the
English syntax, subject-verb agreement, etc need to be addressed.
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-12-54 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Palm Vitamin E Reduces Catecholamines, Xanthine Oxidase Activity and
Gastric Lesions in Rats Exposed To Water-Immersion Restraint Stress
Version: 2Date:19 March 2012
Reviewer: Fang Yan
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer 2 raised a general comment that the effects of PVE and #-TF on
gastric injury in more than one time point should be tested or the author should
give a comment on that as editor recommended, and 4 specific comments. The
author just revised the figure legend as requested (comment 1). The authors did
not provide any useful information regarding the general comment and specific
comments 2-4.
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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-12-50 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Interval colon cancer in a Lynch syndrome patient under annual
colonoscopic surveillance: A case for advanced imaging techniques?
Version: 1Date:28 February 2012
Reviewer: Maria Pellise
Reviewer's report:
This case report deals with an infrequent disease and the case illustrates very
appropriately a relevant situation where the clinician has to be aware. It is very
well written and the comprehensive discussion made it advisable for publication.
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-12-50 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Interval colon cancer in a Lynch syndrome patient under annual
colonoscopic surveillance: A case for advanced imaging techniques?
Version: 1Date:22 April 2012
Reviewer: Suzanne Skoog
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions:
1. recommend using "surveillance" rather than "screening" in conclusion
paragraphs 1, 6 (2 changes), and 8.
2. with the recent change to "split" preps, it would be interesting to know if
the prep had changed from year 2009 to 2010. This change in bowel preparation
may help reduce missed right sided lesions as well.
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-12-49 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence of Helicobacter pylori high tetracycline resistant 16S rDNA
AGA926-928TTC genotype in gastric biopsy specimens from dyspeptic patients
of a city in the interior of Sao Paulo, Brazil
Version: 1Date:31 January 2012
Reviewer: Francis Megraud
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript R.B. Suzuki et al. report their experience in the detection of H.
pylori and H. pylori resistance to tetracycline using a PCR on the 16S rRNA gene
followed by RFLP with the HinfI restriction enzyme.
They detected H. pylori by PCR in 395/435 (90.8%) patients for which histology
was positive. Restriction of the 545 bp amplicon was obtained in 393 out of the
395 cases and presented the tetracycline susceptible pattern. They found that
the absence of restriction of the 2 other amplicons was due to a substitution at
position 958.
An interesting result of this study, performed on a large number of cases, is the
absence of the tetracycline resistance pattern of H. pylori in a region where it was
claimed that this pattern was relatively frequent.
A limit of the study is the lack of culture which would have increased the
accuracy of the H. pylori diagnosis and would have allowed a verification of
whether another mechanism of tetracycline resistance was present.
The article could be shorter especially the background. It would be good to briefly
explain that the amplicon restriction leads to 3 bands instead of 2 when the
resistance genotype is present.
The title should be: “Absence of Helicobacter pylori high tetracycline resistant….”
(instead of Prevalence).
There are a number of misspellings to be corrected.
Page 10, line 13: the reference to Ribeiro is No. 42.
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:
No.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-12-49 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence of Helicobacter pylori high tetracycline resistant 16S rDNA
AGA926-928TTC genotype in gastric biopsy specimens from dyspeptic patients
of a city in the interior of Sao Paulo, Brazil
Version: 1Date:3 February 2012
Reviewer: Dawn Israel
Reviewer's report:
Antibiotic resistance among H. pylori stains is of clinical relevance and increasing
significance. Some studies have previously reported frequent tetracycline
resistance (TetR) in H. pylori isolates from countries including Brazil. Therefore,
in the study presented, the investigators’ goal was to assess the utility of
PCR/RFLP technique to predict TetR in clinical samples from Brazil. H. pylori
was diagnosed by histology, DNA was isolated from biopsies determined to be H.
pylori positive and these samples were subjected to PCR of a region of 16SrRNA
followed by RFLP analysis.
Major Compulsory Revisions
Unfortunately, no samples were cultured in order to determine definitively the
susceptibility to tetracycline. The investigators did not identify the mutation
expected to result in TetR in their samples, but since the resistance status of the
strains was not determined, it cannot be concluded that the technique is useful or
not since the result overall was a negative one. Further, the manuscript was
difficult to uncommon usage of English at times and numerous misspellings.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. P. 4. I do not understand the last sentence on this page continuing to page 5.
2. P. 6, 3rd paragraph. The “household rapid urease test” might be omitted if
usable results were not obtained. If it is included, it be renamed “rapid urease
test” and described in the methods.
3. P. 7, 2nd paragraph. “926, 927 e 928”: “e” should be “and”.
4. Results. If TetR H. pylori is highly prevalent in this population, further
possibilities should be described regarding the lack of the predicted mutation.
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-12-49 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence of Helicobacter pylori high tetracycline resistant 16S rDNA
AGA926-928TTC genotype in gastric biopsy specimens from dyspeptic patients
of a city in the interior of Sao Paulo, Brazil
Version: 2Date:18 April 2012
Reviewer: Dawn Israel
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript has been improved substantially and all points of concern have
now been addressed.
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-12-49 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence of Helicobacter pylori high tetracycline resistant 16S rDNA
AGA926-928TTC genotype in gastric biopsy specimens from dyspeptic patients
of a city in the interior of Sao Paulo, Brazil
Version: 2Date:24 April 2012
Reviewer: Francis Megraud
Reviewer's report:
Please make the following corrections:
Page 2, Abstract, line7, “patients attending…” (instead of “attended”)
Page 3, line 3, Conclusions: H. pylori AGA926-928TTC… (not AGA926-929TTC)
Page 4, line 6: metronidazole (not methronidazol)
Line 7: …”with a proton pump inhibitor…” (not pump proton)
Line 8: “omeprazole, lansoparole or pantoprozole”.
Line 15: … “and increase in H. pylori…” (not “increases”)
Page 5 , line 12: “..;rRNA region, interacting stoically..” (not interviewing)
Line 13: “This binding site..” (not biding).
Line 18: …”result in a low level of TetR” (not low rates)
Page 6, Ruslts & Discussion, 1st line: “…patients attending the…” (not attended)
Line 3: “Endoscopic finding of peptic…” (not finds)
Page 10, line 8: Taq DNA Polymerase … (not Polimerase)
Line 9: “(Invitrogen)” (not Invitrogem). “The PCR products were resolved…” (not
“The products of PCR reactions were…”)
Line 17: “… were resolved in 8% acrylamide gels…” (not acrilamide)
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-12-47 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Vertebral fractures in patients with inflammatory bowel disease compared
with healthy population
Version: 1Date:27 February 2012
Reviewer: Max Reinshagen
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting study showing that the risk for vertebral fractures is 4 times
higher in patients with Crohn´s disease in comparison to an age-matched control
collective.
The new finding in this study is that low BMD and corticosteroid therapy was not
associated with an increased risk for vertebral fractures.
This is an interesting finding but in the control group there are no fractures below
the age of 40 years whereas in the CD group 66% of fractures occurs in that
subgroup.
1) Therefore Table 2 needs revision showing the subgroups of patients and
controls < 40 years and > years.
2) This point needs more discussion
3) The activity of CD is quite low in most patients in this study compared to most
studies published so far and the proportion of patients > 40 years is quite high.
This needs to be adressed to allow comparison to the already published data.
4) Since no apparent reason for increased fracture rate could be shown more
discussion regarding other possible (e.g. genetic causes) factors should be
included.
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-12-47 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Vertebral fractures in patients with inflammatory bowel disease compared
with a healthy population: a prospective case-control study
Version: 2Date:4 April 2012
Reviewer: Ashwin N Ananthakrishnan
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate the changes made by the authors and find them satisfactory. I find
all my original concerns addressed.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-12-47 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Vertebral fractures in patients with inflammatory bowel disease compared
with a healthy population: a prospective case-control study
Version: 2Date:15 April 2012
Reviewer: Pal Miheller
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
The revised and corrected manuscript is important on this field, and I think it is
acceptable for publication.
Kind regards,
Pal Miheller
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 10.1186/1471-230X-12-47 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Vertebral fractures in patients with inflammatory bowel disease compared
with a healthy population: a prospective case-control study
Version: 2Date:23 April 2012
Reviewer: Max Reinshagen
Reviewer's report:
My suggestions have not been incorporated into the manuscript.
Therefore I am unable to change my review.
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 10.1186/1471-230X-12-48 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic ultrasound criteria to predict the need for intervention in
pancreatic necrosis
Version: 1Date:3 October 2011
Reviewer: Georg Kaehler
Reviewer's report:
The paper describes a retrospective analysis about 31 patients with pancreatic
necrosis (detected by endoscopic ultrasound) which did not receive an
interventional or surgical therapy.
The details of endosonograhic characterization have been correlated with the
outcome and recommendations for an observational strategy are given.
This is an question of daily clinical practice and that’s why the paper is
interesting. The used design of the study is originally and allows to improve
clinical decisions. Thus the paper is recommended for publication.
• Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use
of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
Chapter “Patients and methods”: The authors should add the used EUS
machines.
• Major Compulsory Revisions (which the author must respond to before a
decision on publication can be reached)
The authors should characterize how they diagnosed “pancreatic necrosis”
compared with localized pancreatitis, because this determination influences the
results strongly.
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.
Review for 10.1186/1471-230X-12-48 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic ultrasound criteria to predict the need for intervention in
pancreatic necrosis
Version: 1Date:13 December 2011
Reviewer: Derek O'Reilly
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Patients:
Contrast-enhanced CT is the gold standard for the diagnosis of pancreatic
necrosis (IAP and BSG Guidelines). Give details of CT findings; timing, extent of
necrosis and preferably Balthazar score.
Make an explicit statement of the primary end-point, i.e. “the primary end-point
was…”
Statistical analysis: explain further or reference the “glm () and lm() functions”.
Results:
Table 1 could be much improved if it was presented as a trial profile, rather than
presenting the raw data for each patient.
Although 10 patients are said to reach the end-point, only 9 are accounted for in
the text (3 endoscopic, 2 percut., 1 died with lung cancer, 1 with ileus, 2 had
surgery = 9)
The timing of EUS is essential, as necrosis is a dynamic process. The number of
days from disease onset to EUS should be specified.
Discussion:
The issue of the timing of EUS should be addressed in the discussion, along with
other limitations.
The conclusion that clinical presentation or CRP does not define the long-term
clinical course is not valid. Your study of 31 patients is not powered to make this
conclusion, and this statement should be deleted or qualified.
Minor Essential Revisions
Page 7, 2nd line: add the word “open” before “surgery”.
Page 7: Move the sentence beginning, “Fig 1 shows…” to the Methods section.
P9, lines 7, 8, 9: Use “undrained” not “not drained”, insert “the” before “blood”
and “immune”. Line 11: omit “has” before “led”.
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-12-48 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic ultrasound criteria to predict the need for intervention in
pancreatic necrosis
Version: 2Date:20 February 2012
Reviewer: Derek O'Reilly
Reviewer's report:
Suitable for publication in BMC Gastroenterology.
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-12-46 (2012)

Reviewer's report
Title:Diabetes and insulin use are linked to Helicobacter pylori eradication
Version: 5Date:20 February 2012
Reviewer: Kazunari Murakami
Reviewer's report:
Authors report the relationship between incidence of HP radication and Diabetes.
This is a very interesting report, however, some problems are listed below.
1. In the manuscript, a phrase of “the risk of HP eradication” appears frequently.
“Risk” may be often used as an epidemiological term, but the word “incidence”
may be better. It should be changed.
2. Page 9, line 16, please explain the mean of “a higher activity of HP infection in
the diabetic patients”
3. Page 10, line 11, Authors mention that HP eradication dose not related on the
reduction of intestinal metaplasia(IM). But there are a lot of papers which mention
improvement of IM after HP eradication. Authors should refer them for
discussion.
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.