Title: Effect of Biliopancreatic Tree Anatomy on Development of Acute Gallstone Pancreatitis
Version: 2 Date: 02 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors have thoroughly revised the manuscript and have acknowledged all the points
I mentioned in my review. It is remarkable how much effort and work they have put into
the manuscript once again. Nevertheless, not all the points addressed are satisfactory. For the
definition of gallstone-associated pancreatitis, it is stated that this was defined in such a way that
all “AP patients with a defined etiology other than gallstones, and patients with undetermined
etiology of AP were excluded from the study”. If this definition was really sufficient for a
gallstone-associated genesis of the disease, then “undetermined” would have to be defined
precisely.
The main disadvantage of the study, however, remains the wrong patient collective for answering
the question, in my opinion. The authors consider the objection justified that “it would have
been better to compare patients with gallstone disease and acute pancreatitis with patients with
gallstone disease and no history of pancreatitis”. They have included a corresponding sentence
in the discussion as a disadvantage of the study. Nevertheless, in my view this is not the right
patient population for answering the question raised. For this reason, I still do not recommend
publication of the manuscript.
Title: Effect of Biliopancreatic Tree Anatomy on Development of Acute Gallstone Pancreatitis
Version: 2 Date: 02 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors have thoroughly revised the manuscript and have acknowledged all the points
I mentioned in my review. It is remarkable how much effort and work they have put into
the manuscript once again. Nevertheless, not all the points addressed are satisfactory. For the
definition of gallstone-associated pancreatitis, it is stated that this was defined in such a way that
all “AP patients with a defined etiology other than gallstones, and patients with undetermined
etiology of AP were excluded from the study”. If this definition was really sufficient for a
gallstone-associated genesis of the disease, then “undetermined” would have to be defined
precisely.
The main disadvantage of the study, however, remains the wrong patient collective for answering
the question, in my opinion. The authors consider the objection justified that “it would have
been better to compare patients with gallstone disease and acute pancreatitis with patients with
gallstone disease and no history of pancreatitis”. They have included a corresponding sentence
in the discussion as a disadvantage of the study. Nevertheless, in my view this is not the right
patient population for answering the question raised. For this reason, I still do not recommend
publication of the manuscript.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Effect of Biliopancreatic Tree Anatomy on Development of Acute Gallstone Pancreatitis
Version: 2 Date: 02 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors have thoroughly revised the manuscript and have acknowledged all the points
I mentioned in my review. It is remarkable how much effort and work they have put into
the manuscript once again. Nevertheless, not all the points addressed are satisfactory. For the
definition of gallstone-associated pancreatitis, it is stated that this was defined in such a way that
all “AP patients with a defined etiology other than gallstones, and patients with undetermined
etiology of AP were excluded from the study”. If this definition was really sufficient for a
gallstone-associated genesis of the disease, then “undetermined” would have to be defined
precisely.
The main disadvantage of the study, however, remains the wrong patient collective for answering
the question, in my opinion. The authors consider the objection justified that “it would have
been better to compare patients with gallstone disease and acute pancreatitis with patients with
gallstone disease and no history of pancreatitis”. They have included a corresponding sentence
in the discussion as a disadvantage of the study. Nevertheless, in my view this is not the right
patient population for answering the question raised. For this reason, I still do not recommend
publication of the manuscript.
assistant