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:  29 Feb 2016  
 
Reviewer:  Rakesh Kumar  Gupta  
 
Reviewer's report:  
dear authors,  
it gives me immense pleasure to write back  to you.  
I am very glad that you have incorporate d the suggestions  made to you. though there are a few 
tweeks from my side:  
1. the definition of AS has AS in it.( does not make sense)  
2. grammatical errors in english language is still present.  
Otherwise I think its ok from my side  
 
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 r eview?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
I am able to assess the statistics  
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manu script:  
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 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 competing i nterests  
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 posted on t he 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