Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01376-y (2020)

Reviewer’ s report
Title: Cholecystectomy outcomes after endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with choledocho-
lithiasis: A meta-analysis
Version: 2Date: 13 May 2020
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several testable
research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)No - there are minor issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the
objective?Not sure - key details are missing from the manuscript
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can furtherrevisions be made to make the work technically sound?Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:GENERAL COMMENTS: This study undertakes a meta-analysis to compare the clinical
outcomes of wait-and-see policy or laparoscopic cholecystectomy afterendoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) for bile-duct stones.1) The title of the article doesn't make this wholly clear to the reader, as I initially presumed thiswas a meta-analysis investigating outcomes solely for those undergoing laparoscopiccholecystectomy post-ES.2) The topic has been well-studied previously.3) The language and writing would benefit from further review as I found the manuscript hard to
follow in places.
4) A meta-analysis has been performed but I could see no reference to the PRISMA guidelines and
no checklist was provided for these.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
1) The manuscript is in need of in-depth review of the medical English, wording and grammar inorder to improve the intelligibility2) The authors should consider the PRISMA guidelines, ensuring these have been followedappropriately for conducting and reporting the meta-analysis and including the checklist3) The authors should consider the limitations of this work in more detail in the discussion, e.g.
including consideration of potential biases in the included retrospective cohort study vs RCTs
4) I note in the original reviewer comments (Reviewer 3, Q2) they queried only having 2 authors,which the response quite rightly defended. I am unable to see the number of authors, howevergiven this I note the end of section 2.2. line 46 which mentions a third author. Is this correct?5) Noting previous reviewer comments, the uploaded figures are now clearer6) Other reviewer comments largely now addressed
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
NoDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
NoAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
NoAre you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statisticsQuality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being publishedDeclaration 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 financially from the publication of thismanuscript, 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 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.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer hasagreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution Licenseattributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within aspecified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewerrecommendation.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named reportincluding 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 CommonsCC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any commentswhich I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commentsto the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal