Title: Association of gallbladder diseases with risk of gastrointestinal polyps
Version: 2 Date: 24 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Juan Carlos Araya
Reviewer's report:
In recent years we have seen how gallbladder polyps have been gaining ground in clinical
practice and studies of the etiology of gallbladder carcinoma. Probably, the better skills of
our radiologists and the use of ultrasound with better technology explain this phenomenon.
However, it is not a minor fact that the understanding and better systematization of the
gallbladder polyps contribute to a better understanding of their importance and improve the
therapeutic approach algorithms. The study by Wenbin Geng and others adds a new and exciting
point of view, opening lines of exploration of unquestionable interest. Even though it is a
study that uses data that are not the traditional golden rules, it demonstrates an association
between entities commonly studied separately. In the future, we will be able to see similar
population analyses, supported by detailed histopathological data and molecular studies that
open the discussion about possible shared metabolic pathways. My recommendation is that the
article should be published, given the authors could make some changes:
1. On page 10 of the revised document, first paragraph, and first sentence, there is confusing
information when comparing single or multiple gallbladder polyps with large intestine polyps
and multiple gallbladder polyps. Either it is a bug, or it requires simplifying the comparison of
groups of cases.
2. Referring to the list of the gallbladder, large intestine, and stomach polyps, the authors, refer
to Table 3. Unfortunately, this table did not include the group of patients with stomach polyps
only. Such data is relevant and should be added.
3. In general, in gallbladder polyps, the size of 1 cm has been considered the breaking point
for deciding on immediate surgery or strict control and follow-up. As the authors do not have
information to define whether the patients with gallbladder polyps considered are neoplastic or
not, my recommendation is to discuss the reason why 0.5 cm was chosen as the division between
significant cases or, if possible, reconstruct the analysis using 1 cm as the dividing line.
4. To focus the manuscript on the most valuable contribution of the authors, I suggest that
tables 4, 6, 7, and 8 be reserved as unpublished data and accessible as complementary material,
available through the internet for those who would like to know detailed information.
5. In the final part of the presentation of the results, the distinction of colorectal polyps as
adenoma and non-adenoma appear. In my opinion, if the histology of some or all of these cases
was available, it should be stated in the material and methods section and the summary tables
of the manuscript.
6. The length of the manuscript and the clarity of the exposition seem clear.
7. The discussion is precise and raises some hypotheses that future studies could contribute to
its validation.
8. The bibliography seems appropriate.
Title: Association of gallbladder diseases with risk of gastrointestinal polyps
Version: 2 Date: 24 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Juan Carlos Araya
Reviewer's report:
In recent years we have seen how gallbladder polyps have been gaining ground in clinical
practice and studies of the etiology of gallbladder carcinoma. Probably, the better skills of
our radiologists and the use of ultrasound with better technology explain this phenomenon.
However, it is not a minor fact that the understanding and better systematization of the
gallbladder polyps contribute to a better understanding of their importance and improve the
therapeutic approach algorithms. The study by Wenbin Geng and others adds a new and exciting
point of view, opening lines of exploration of unquestionable interest. Even though it is a
study that uses data that are not the traditional golden rules, it demonstrates an association
between entities commonly studied separately. In the future, we will be able to see similar
population analyses, supported by detailed histopathological data and molecular studies that
open the discussion about possible shared metabolic pathways. My recommendation is that the
article should be published, given the authors could make some changes:
1. On page 10 of the revised document, first paragraph, and first sentence, there is confusing
information when comparing single or multiple gallbladder polyps with large intestine polyps
and multiple gallbladder polyps. Either it is a bug, or it requires simplifying the comparison of
groups of cases.
2. Referring to the list of the gallbladder, large intestine, and stomach polyps, the authors, refer
to Table 3. Unfortunately, this table did not include the group of patients with stomach polyps
only. Such data is relevant and should be added.
3. In general, in gallbladder polyps, the size of 1 cm has been considered the breaking point
for deciding on immediate surgery or strict control and follow-up. As the authors do not have
information to define whether the patients with gallbladder polyps considered are neoplastic or
not, my recommendation is to discuss the reason why 0.5 cm was chosen as the division between
significant cases or, if possible, reconstruct the analysis using 1 cm as the dividing line.
4. To focus the manuscript on the most valuable contribution of the authors, I suggest that
tables 4, 6, 7, and 8 be reserved as unpublished data and accessible as complementary material,
available through the internet for those who would like to know detailed information.
5. In the final part of the presentation of the results, the distinction of colorectal polyps as
adenoma and non-adenoma appear. In my opinion, if the histology of some or all of these cases
was available, it should be stated in the material and methods section and the summary tables
of the manuscript.
6. The length of the manuscript and the clarity of the exposition seem clear.
7. The discussion is precise and raises some hypotheses that future studies could contribute to
its validation.
8. The bibliography seems appropriate.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Association of gallbladder diseases with risk of gastrointestinal polyps
Version: 2 Date: 24 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Juan Carlos Araya
Reviewer's report:
In recent years we have seen how gallbladder polyps have been gaining ground in clinical
practice and studies of the etiology of gallbladder carcinoma. Probably, the better skills of
our radiologists and the use of ultrasound with better technology explain this phenomenon.
However, it is not a minor fact that the understanding and better systematization of the
gallbladder polyps contribute to a better understanding of their importance and improve the
therapeutic approach algorithms. The study by Wenbin Geng and others adds a new and exciting
point of view, opening lines of exploration of unquestionable interest. Even though it is a
study that uses data that are not the traditional golden rules, it demonstrates an association
between entities commonly studied separately. In the future, we will be able to see similar
population analyses, supported by detailed histopathological data and molecular studies that
open the discussion about possible shared metabolic pathways. My recommendation is that the
article should be published, given the authors could make some changes:
1. On page 10 of the revised document, first paragraph, and first sentence, there is confusing
information when comparing single or multiple gallbladder polyps with large intestine polyps
and multiple gallbladder polyps. Either it is a bug, or it requires simplifying the comparison of
groups of cases.
2. Referring to the list of the gallbladder, large intestine, and stomach polyps, the authors, refer
to Table 3. Unfortunately, this table did not include the group of patients with stomach polyps
only. Such data is relevant and should be added.
3. In general, in gallbladder polyps, the size of 1 cm has been considered the breaking point
for deciding on immediate surgery or strict control and follow-up. As the authors do not have
information to define whether the patients with gallbladder polyps considered are neoplastic or
not, my recommendation is to discuss the reason why 0.5 cm was chosen as the division between
significant cases or, if possible, reconstruct the analysis using 1 cm as the dividing line.
4. To focus the manuscript on the most valuable contribution of the authors, I suggest that
tables 4, 6, 7, and 8 be reserved as unpublished data and accessible as complementary material,
available through the internet for those who would like to know detailed information.
5. In the final part of the presentation of the results, the distinction of colorectal polyps as
adenoma and non-adenoma appear. In my opinion, if the histology of some or all of these cases
was available, it should be stated in the material and methods section and the summary tables
of the manuscript.
6. The length of the manuscript and the clarity of the exposition seem clear.
7. The discussion is precise and raises some hypotheses that future studies could contribute to
its validation.
8. The bibliography seems appropriate.
assistant