Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02610-5 (2022)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Long-term outcomes of endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage
using a novel spiral plastic stent in acute calculus cholecystitis
Version: 
0 
Date: 
21 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading
your report as an attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated
versions of manuscripts, graphs, supporting materials or other aspects of your
report which cannot be included in a text format.
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.
Author performed a retrospective, single-center study to evaluate the long-term
outcomes of endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (EGBS) using a
novel spiral plastic stent in acute calculus cholecystitis. They concluded that
EGBS with a novel spiral-shaped plastic stent is safe and effective modality.
However, there are some problems in this manuscripts, as written below. 
Major comments:
1. In method section, no detailed flow diagram about the information of the
number of included and excluded patients, the numbers of patients screened for
EGBS and failed for EGBS, and any patients with lost of follow up during study
period was mentioned. Any possibility of selection bias in this study should be
considered.
2. In measurements section, I can't understand that cystic duct injury was defined
by author as displacement of the guidewire or cannula from the cystic duct
lumen. Author may consider to describe the definition precisely or cite any
reference.
3. In measurements section, stent migration with cholecystitis was only
considered as cholecystitis. I think it will miss the information and underestimate
the risk of stent migration. In such condition, author should consider two
different adverse events (both of stent migration and acute cholecystitis)
developed in the same patient.
4. In result section, author only mentioned the clinical success rate without any
information of technical success rate. I think it is very important information for
readers to compare with other modalities for acute cholecystitis, like PTGBD or
EUS-GBD.
5. Author did not mention the information how to follow up patients after
receiving EGBS in this study.
6. Author used the term of low performance status in this study mean lower
ECOG score or poor performance status ?
7. Any additional findings can be adding to what already has been reported on
this topic ?
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
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 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 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
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes