Reviewer's report 
 The role of mast cells in the pathogenesis of pain in chronic pancreatitis Title: 
 3  1 February 2005 Version: Date: 
 Kimberly Kirkwood Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
Response to 1. Argument is invalid. The authors purport to use the results of the present study to 
validate the distinction between experimental groups, which is not a valid means of stratifying the groups. The differences in mast cell counts between groups could be attributable to many other 
factors in this small number of patients besides the presence or absence of "pain" in the medical 
record at the time of autopsy. It is an interesting observation which may be worthy of investigation. 
Response to 2. Argument is simply a re-statement and adds nothing new. The fact remains that the 
technique used to measure pain has not been validated in this model of pancreatitis in this animal. 
The authors refer to a paper by Vera-Portocarrero et al in which this technique was supported by the use of opiods to block the response. Since Vera-Portocarrero's work used a different rodent (rat vs. mouse) and a different model of pancreatitis, it does not further their cause. The work would have 
been strenghtened by a second pain endpoint. 
Response to 3. fine. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) Responses are fine. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare i have no competing interests. 
Reviewer's report 
 The role of mast cells in the pathogenesis of pain in chronic pancreatitis Title: 
 3  1 February 2005 Version: Date: 
 Kimberly Kirkwood Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
Response to 1. Argument is invalid. The authors purport to use the results of the present study to 
validate the distinction between experimental groups, which is not a valid means of stratifying the groups. The differences in mast cell counts between groups could be attributable to many other 
factors in this small number of patients besides the presence or absence of "pain" in the medical 
record at the time of autopsy. It is an interesting observation which may be worthy of investigation. 
Response to 2. Argument is simply a re-statement and adds nothing new. The fact remains that the 
technique used to measure pain has not been validated in this model of pancreatitis in this animal. 
The authors refer to a paper by Vera-Portocarrero et al in which this technique was supported by the use of opiods to block the response. Since Vera-Portocarrero's work used a different rodent (rat vs. mouse) and a different model of pancreatitis, it does not further their cause. The work would have 
been strenghtened by a second pain endpoint. 
Response to 3. fine. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) Responses are fine. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare i have no competing interests. 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 The role of mast cells in the pathogenesis of pain in chronic pancreatitis Title: 
 3  1 February 2005 Version: Date: 
 Kimberly Kirkwood Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
Response to 1. Argument is invalid. The authors purport to use the results of the present study to 
validate the distinction between experimental groups, which is not a valid means of stratifying the groups. The differences in mast cell counts between groups could be attributable to many other 
factors in this small number of patients besides the presence or absence of "pain" in the medical 
record at the time of autopsy. It is an interesting observation which may be worthy of investigation. 
Response to 2. Argument is simply a re-statement and adds nothing new. The fact remains that the 
technique used to measure pain has not been validated in this model of pancreatitis in this animal. 
The authors refer to a paper by Vera-Portocarrero et al in which this technique was supported by the use of opiods to block the response. Since Vera-Portocarrero's work used a different rodent (rat vs. mouse) and a different model of pancreatitis, it does not further their cause. The work would have 
been strenghtened by a second pain endpoint. 
Response to 3. fine. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) Responses are fine. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare i have no competing interests. 
assistant