Review for 10.1186/s12876-017-0661-2 (2017)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  The modified pancreatic stent system for prevention of post -ERCP pancre atitis: a case -
control study  
 
Version: 1 Date: 13 Dec 2016 
 
Reviewer:  Amy  Tyberg  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
Thank you for your responses - I agree with the changes made. Just a few additional comments:  
 
1. Although nasobiliary drains are routinely placed in China, I think it is still important to 
mention how many of them were removed due to patient discomfort or intolerance in the 
manuscript.  
 
2. I remain a bit surprised a t the high proximal migration rate of pancreatic stents at 8.7%. While 
this new device does negate the need to retrieve proximally migrated stents, I don't believe this 
point deserves as much emphasis as it is given in the paper since proximal migration is , in 
general, an extremely rare complication of PD stents. The other benefits of this new device, such 
as decreasing the need for repeat endoscopy and preventing early PD stent abscission, are 
stronger arguments in favor of the device.  
 
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 controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors . 
 
Yes 
 
Are 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 further 
assessment in your comments to the edit ors. 
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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 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 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 pe er 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 report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the auth ors' 
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 d o 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