Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: A cross -sectional study of nausea in functional abdominal pain: Relation to mucosal mast  
cells and psychological functioning  
 
Version: 0 Date: 04 Aug 2019  
 
Reviewer: Pankaj Pasricha  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
While this is an interesting and well written paper, its major and limiting flaw is the weak 
association betw een mast cells and reported nausea. First, the differences in mast cell counts 
between the nausea+ and nausea - groups is very small (further, no norms are provided from 
controls without FD or IBS) and at the border of biological plausibility. Secondly the statistical 
analysis is only a simple t -test and corrections for multiple comparisons were not made. A 
multilinear regression model would be one approach.  
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which c ontrols are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you reco mmend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicat e the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years rece ived reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way  gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or s alary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can a nswer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understa nd that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be  made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors,  which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: A cross -sectional study of nausea in functional abdominal pain: Relation to mucosal mast  
cells and psychological functioning  
 
Version: 0 Date: 04 Aug 2019  
 
Reviewer: Pankaj Pasricha  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
While this is an interesting and well written paper, its major and limiting flaw is the weak 
association betw een mast cells and reported nausea. First, the differences in mast cell counts 
between the nausea+ and nausea - groups is very small (further, no norms are provided from 
controls without FD or IBS) and at the border of biological plausibility. Secondly the statistical 
analysis is only a simple t -test and corrections for multiple comparisons were not made. A 
multilinear regression model would be one approach.  
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which c ontrols are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you reco mmend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicat e the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years rece ived reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way  gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or s alary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can a nswer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understa nd that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be  made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors,  which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: A cross -sectional study of nausea in functional abdominal pain: Relation to mucosal mast  
cells and psychological functioning  
 
Version: 0 Date: 04 Aug 2019  
 
Reviewer: Pankaj Pasricha  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
While this is an interesting and well written paper, its major and limiting flaw is the weak 
association betw een mast cells and reported nausea. First, the differences in mast cell counts 
between the nausea+ and nausea - groups is very small (further, no norms are provided from 
controls without FD or IBS) and at the border of biological plausibility. Secondly the statistical 
analysis is only a simple t -test and corrections for multiple comparisons were not made. A 
multilinear regression model would be one approach.  
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which c ontrols are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you reco mmend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicat e the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years rece ived reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way  gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or s alary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can a nswer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understa nd that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be  made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors,  which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant