Review for 10.1186/s12876-016-0465-9 (2016)

Reviewer ’s report  
Title:  The treatment of anastomotic strictures after Roux -en-Y hepaticojejunostomy: 
"Choledochoscopic  high-frequency needle -knife electrotomy" or ballon dilation + stent 
placement.  Which one is better?  
 
Version:  1 Date:  28 Mar 2016  
 
Reviewer:  Meltem  Ergun  
 
Reviewer's report:  
I found this article acceptable. According to reviewer s comments corrections were made. I found 
this method useful and applicable.  
We may change the title of the article: "The treatment of anastomotic strictures after Roux -en-Y 
hepaticojejunostomy: "Choledochoscopic high -frequency needle -knife electrotomy" o r ballon 
dilation + stent placement. Which one is better?  OR "The treatment of anastomotic strictures 
after Roux -en-Y hepaticojejunostomy: "Choledochoscopic high -frequency needle -knife 
electrotomy" or ballon dilation + stent placement.or Combined treatmen t is the best". The title of 
the article will be fascinating that way.  
In background line 16 "however" Word is not correctly written.  
 
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.  
No 
  
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 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, 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 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 a pplied 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 co mpeting interests'  
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 report 
including any attachments I upload will be p osted 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 i ncluded 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