Review for 10.1186/s12876-018-0765-3 (2018)

Reviewer ’s report  
Title: Recurrent common bile duct stones as a late complication of endoscopic sphincterotomy  
 
Version: 2 Date: 18 Jan 2018  
 
Reviewer: Cheng -Hsin Chu  
 
Reviewer's re port:   
1. This study is a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent ERCP and ES on a 
prospectively maintained database for 15 years. The follow -up of this study was so long that 
the long -term complication rate could be considered as a representative m easure  
2. Is there any standardization of ES incision length in this study? Is full cut or half cut of 
ampulla of Vater ?  
3. Do you have checked the status of stricture in CBD as well as the refusion in papillary orifice 
s/p EST? Because of anatomical vari ance would result in different recurrence of CBD stone  
4. Does the more increase the diameter of the CBD, it more increases the first, the 
second…recurrences of CBDs at the clinical presentation in your study?  
5. How much percentage of CBDs retrieval by si mple basket? Balloon method? And Mechanical 
basket equipment?  Does the latter will more complicate with CBDs recurrence?  
6. In this study, does the CBD diameter related to age, time (early or late) in CBDs recurrence? 
Moreover, does it related to ES compl ications such as: bleeding, cholangitis, pancreatitis….  
7. Do you compare with CBD diameter in group of CBDs with/without recurrence?  
8. Does this study observe the regression of CBD diameter after stones extraction, it seems to 
less stone recurrence (no biliary dyskinesia) in your clinical follow -up. 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the a uthors.  
Yes 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls 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 t he authors.  
Yes 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
I recommend additional statistical review  
Quality of written English  
Please indicate 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 received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary  from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publicatio n 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 salary 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 answer 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 understand that my name will be includ ed 
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