Reviewer's report 
 Anomalous Opening of the Common Bile Duct into the Duodenal Bulb: Endoscopic Treatment Title: 
 1  20 March 2007 Version: Date: 
 Everson Artifon Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
-It will be need that a native colleague read the manuscript because some sentences are not well 
structured; -Methodology is not good. This session should be improved including more details about each issue in analysis.The method is also not corresponding to the results(please, the authors must need to do this 
improving). 
-The manuscript appears to be a cohort project ,so it will be need to demonstrated the "n' power and a rate analysis . Please, include the statistical analysis in the method session. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
-The tables should be improved because it seems a little bit confusing for the readers. - The references should be checked because two of them are not corresponding to the citation in the 
text.Please, let us know the accuracy of these references. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Reviewer's report 
 Anomalous Opening of the Common Bile Duct into the Duodenal Bulb: Endoscopic Treatment Title: 
 1  20 March 2007 Version: Date: 
 Everson Artifon Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
-It will be need that a native colleague read the manuscript because some sentences are not well 
structured; -Methodology is not good. This session should be improved including more details about each issue in analysis.The method is also not corresponding to the results(please, the authors must need to do this 
improving). 
-The manuscript appears to be a cohort project ,so it will be need to demonstrated the "n' power and a rate analysis . Please, include the statistical analysis in the method session. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
-The tables should be improved because it seems a little bit confusing for the readers. - The references should be checked because two of them are not corresponding to the citation in the 
text.Please, let us know the accuracy of these references. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Anomalous Opening of the Common Bile Duct into the Duodenal Bulb: Endoscopic Treatment Title: 
 1  20 March 2007 Version: Date: 
 Everson Artifon Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
-It will be need that a native colleague read the manuscript because some sentences are not well 
structured; -Methodology is not good. This session should be improved including more details about each issue in analysis.The method is also not corresponding to the results(please, the authors must need to do this 
improving). 
-The manuscript appears to be a cohort project ,so it will be need to demonstrated the "n' power and a rate analysis . Please, include the statistical analysis in the method session. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
-The tables should be improved because it seems a little bit confusing for the readers. - The references should be checked because two of them are not corresponding to the citation in the 
text.Please, let us know the accuracy of these references. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
assistant