Reviewer's report
Title:Linear Echoendoscope-Guided ERCP for the Diagnosis of Occult Common
Bile Duct Stones
Version: 4Date:21 December 2012
Reviewer: Hjalmar van Santvoort
Reviewer's report:
The authors have provided good answers to the points raised in my previous
review. However, not all answers (especially when requesting additional data)
have also been added in some form to the revised paper. Please go through your
rebuttal once more and revise the paper accordingly, so the future reader will not
have the same questions as I did.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Linear Echoendoscope-Guided ERCP for the Diagnosis of Occult Common
Bile Duct Stones
Version: 4Date:21 December 2012
Reviewer: Hjalmar van Santvoort
Reviewer's report:
The authors have provided good answers to the points raised in my previous
review. However, not all answers (especially when requesting additional data)
have also been added in some form to the revised paper. Please go through your
rebuttal once more and revise the paper accordingly, so the future reader will not
have the same questions as I did.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Linear Echoendoscope-Guided ERCP for the Diagnosis of Occult Common
Bile Duct Stones
Version: 4Date:21 December 2012
Reviewer: Hjalmar van Santvoort
Reviewer's report:
The authors have provided good answers to the points raised in my previous
review. However, not all answers (especially when requesting additional data)
have also been added in some form to the revised paper. Please go through your
rebuttal once more and revise the paper accordingly, so the future reader will not
have the same questions as I did.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant