Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01295-y (2020)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Production of ERCP training model using a 3D printing technique (with video)  
 
Version: 2 Date: 14 Mar 2020  
 
Reviewer: Reiko Ashida  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is a paper on feasibility in ERCP training model using 3D printing.  
 
It is a very interesting model, and I hope that training using this model will improve ERCP 
education in the future.  
 
This paper is well written but there are some issues to be improved before acceptance.  
 
 
Major  
 
1) In the text, the author introduces various  models up to now, but it is recommended to make a 
table comparing the differences between the previous report and this model.  
 
For example, report date, reporter, model type, characteristics, available procedures, cost, reuse 
ability, etc  
 
 
2) It is said th at there was no problem with reuses ability, but an accurate index is necessary to 
show the durability. For example, how many times can be performed in each procedure using 
what kinds of model depend on trainer and trainee etc.  
 
 
3) For this model, vienna sausage was used for endoscopic sphincterotomy. However, there is 
already silicon type ERCP model which endoscopic sphincterotomy can be prformed. Can 3D 
printing model which can perform endoscopic sphincterotomy be developed in the future?  
 
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 contro ls? 
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
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 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.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
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, f ees, 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 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 re ceived 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 i n relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have  no competi ng 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 re view policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or 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