Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Comparison between transpancreatic sphincterotomy and needle -knife fistulotomy in  
difficulty biliary access, a retrospective study in Taiwan  
 
Version: 2 Date: 08 Dec 2019  
 
Reviewer: Harutoshi Sugiyama  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Dear authors,  
 
Thank you for allow ing me to have a chance to review this paper.  
 
I was really impressed with your efforts to evaluate both techniques and I believe it deserve to be 
published.  
 
If I were to be allowed to recommend something, I would like you to answer two questions.  
 
1. I wou ld like to be informed if there was any strategy to place the prophylactic pancreatic stent. 
For example, after repeated pancreatic approach more than three times or so.  If there was no 
definite strategy, one recommendation is to write down as such, that is, the decision of each 
operator or so.  
 
2. I would like to know the first method of cannulation a little more clearly: that is, with 
sphincterotome or  with Wire -guided cannulation with cannula with inserted guidewire or so.  
 
I hope my recommendation will do good to help this paper to be accepted.  
 
Thank you very much.  
 
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 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 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 com peting 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.  
 
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 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  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Comparison between transpancreatic sphincterotomy and needle -knife fistulotomy in  
difficulty biliary access, a retrospective study in Taiwan  
 
Version: 2 Date: 08 Dec 2019  
 
Reviewer: Harutoshi Sugiyama  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Dear authors,  
 
Thank you for allow ing me to have a chance to review this paper.  
 
I was really impressed with your efforts to evaluate both techniques and I believe it deserve to be 
published.  
 
If I were to be allowed to recommend something, I would like you to answer two questions.  
 
1. I wou ld like to be informed if there was any strategy to place the prophylactic pancreatic stent. 
For example, after repeated pancreatic approach more than three times or so.  If there was no 
definite strategy, one recommendation is to write down as such, that is, the decision of each 
operator or so.  
 
2. I would like to know the first method of cannulation a little more clearly: that is, with 
sphincterotome or  with Wire -guided cannulation with cannula with inserted guidewire or so.  
 
I hope my recommendation will do good to help this paper to be accepted.  
 
Thank you very much.  
 
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 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 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 com peting 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.  
 
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 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  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Comparison between transpancreatic sphincterotomy and needle -knife fistulotomy in  
difficulty biliary access, a retrospective study in Taiwan  
 
Version: 2 Date: 08 Dec 2019  
 
Reviewer: Harutoshi Sugiyama  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Dear authors,  
 
Thank you for allow ing me to have a chance to review this paper.  
 
I was really impressed with your efforts to evaluate both techniques and I believe it deserve to be 
published.  
 
If I were to be allowed to recommend something, I would like you to answer two questions.  
 
1. I wou ld like to be informed if there was any strategy to place the prophylactic pancreatic stent. 
For example, after repeated pancreatic approach more than three times or so.  If there was no 
definite strategy, one recommendation is to write down as such, that is, the decision of each 
operator or so.  
 
2. I would like to know the first method of cannulation a little more clearly: that is, with 
sphincterotome or  with Wire -guided cannulation with cannula with inserted guidewire or so.  
 
I hope my recommendation will do good to help this paper to be accepted.  
 
Thank you very much.  
 
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 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 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 com peting 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.  
 
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 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  
assistant