Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Production of ERCP training model usi ng a 3D printing technique (with video)  
 
Version: 1 Date: 16 Dec 2019  
 
Reviewer: Daisuke Masuda  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Author described 'Production of ERCP training model using a 3D printing technique (with 
video)'.  
 
This is thought to be very feasible ERCP training model.   ERCP is needed for diagnosis and 
treatment of pancreatobiliary diseas es.  On the other hand, ERCP has severe and lethal adverse 
events, especially, such as severe acute pancreatitis.  That is why education for young 
endoscopists on ERCP is very important to teach safe and precise technique for prevention of 
adverse events.  Nevertheless, we don't have good training systems on ERCP phantom model.   
Author's ERCP phantom model has eight different types of ampulla and CBD, these are 
repeatedly utilized and replaced to the main system as module type. This model is attractive and  
interesting, because it is thought to be coped with various cases and various ERCP procedures.  
If I have a chance, I use this phantom model by all means for education of ERCP procedures to 
young endoscopists.  
 
I agree that this paper is accepted to BMC G astroenterology.  
 
I have a query.  In conclusion, author described 'this model is durable, relatively cheap and easy 
to make'.  How does it cost totally to make this type phantom model system with 3D printer? If 
author used another ERCP training phantom mo del previously before using this phantom model, 
what are important and emphasis feasible points of this type compared with previous type?   
 
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 a uthors.  
 
No 
 
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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy 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:  
 
Acce ptable  
 
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, f ees, 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 applied f or 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 interests.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or 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 in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open pee r review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Production of ERCP training model usi ng a 3D printing technique (with video)  
 
Version: 1 Date: 16 Dec 2019  
 
Reviewer: Daisuke Masuda  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Author described 'Production of ERCP training model using a 3D printing technique (with 
video)'.  
 
This is thought to be very feasible ERCP training model.   ERCP is needed for diagnosis and 
treatment of pancreatobiliary diseas es.  On the other hand, ERCP has severe and lethal adverse 
events, especially, such as severe acute pancreatitis.  That is why education for young 
endoscopists on ERCP is very important to teach safe and precise technique for prevention of 
adverse events.  Nevertheless, we don't have good training systems on ERCP phantom model.   
Author's ERCP phantom model has eight different types of ampulla and CBD, these are 
repeatedly utilized and replaced to the main system as module type. This model is attractive and  
interesting, because it is thought to be coped with various cases and various ERCP procedures.  
If I have a chance, I use this phantom model by all means for education of ERCP procedures to 
young endoscopists.  
 
I agree that this paper is accepted to BMC G astroenterology.  
 
I have a query.  In conclusion, author described 'this model is durable, relatively cheap and easy 
to make'.  How does it cost totally to make this type phantom model system with 3D printer? If 
author used another ERCP training phantom mo del previously before using this phantom model, 
what are important and emphasis feasible points of this type compared with previous type?   
 
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 a uthors.  
 
No 
 
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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy 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:  
 
Acce ptable  
 
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, f ees, 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 applied f or 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 interests.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or 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 in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open pee r review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Production of ERCP training model usi ng a 3D printing technique (with video)  
 
Version: 1 Date: 16 Dec 2019  
 
Reviewer: Daisuke Masuda  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Author described 'Production of ERCP training model using a 3D printing technique (with 
video)'.  
 
This is thought to be very feasible ERCP training model.   ERCP is needed for diagnosis and 
treatment of pancreatobiliary diseas es.  On the other hand, ERCP has severe and lethal adverse 
events, especially, such as severe acute pancreatitis.  That is why education for young 
endoscopists on ERCP is very important to teach safe and precise technique for prevention of 
adverse events.  Nevertheless, we don't have good training systems on ERCP phantom model.   
Author's ERCP phantom model has eight different types of ampulla and CBD, these are 
repeatedly utilized and replaced to the main system as module type. This model is attractive and  
interesting, because it is thought to be coped with various cases and various ERCP procedures.  
If I have a chance, I use this phantom model by all means for education of ERCP procedures to 
young endoscopists.  
 
I agree that this paper is accepted to BMC G astroenterology.  
 
I have a query.  In conclusion, author described 'this model is durable, relatively cheap and easy 
to make'.  How does it cost totally to make this type phantom model system with 3D printer? If 
author used another ERCP training phantom mo del previously before using this phantom model, 
what are important and emphasis feasible points of this type compared with previous type?   
 
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 a uthors.  
 
No 
 
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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy 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:  
 
Acce ptable  
 
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, f ees, 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 applied f or 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 interests.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or 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 in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open pee r review policy of the journal  
assistant