Title: Remote-controlled cholangiography injection device: First clinical study in China
Version: 3 Date: 24 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors should be commended for the cleverness of this device. I do believe that it shows
promise and could be a game changer for those who administer contrast.
I did find that I had to read the manuscript twice in its current form in order to understand it. Part
of it is grammar and style. Examples include the conclusion paragraph of the abstract. Contacting
patients telephonically instead of by phone, etc.
The design of this study needs to be clarified. Is this a retrospective review of a prospective
database? Please clarify.
I recommend that the authors clearly state from the beginning that all patients had percutaneous
biliary tubes. While it may be intuitive to some, it may be confusing for others.
It is unclear to me why ERCP is not mentioned in this manuscript as a way to assess the biliary
system?  While not the essence of the paper, the authors do discuss other modalities to evaluate
the biliary system.  I think this should be included.
There were other limitations of the manuscript including its retrospective design?! Please
elaborate.
Title: Remote-controlled cholangiography injection device: First clinical study in China
Version: 3 Date: 24 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors should be commended for the cleverness of this device. I do believe that it shows
promise and could be a game changer for those who administer contrast.
I did find that I had to read the manuscript twice in its current form in order to understand it. Part
of it is grammar and style. Examples include the conclusion paragraph of the abstract. Contacting
patients telephonically instead of by phone, etc.
The design of this study needs to be clarified. Is this a retrospective review of a prospective
database? Please clarify.
I recommend that the authors clearly state from the beginning that all patients had percutaneous
biliary tubes. While it may be intuitive to some, it may be confusing for others.
It is unclear to me why ERCP is not mentioned in this manuscript as a way to assess the biliary
system?  While not the essence of the paper, the authors do discuss other modalities to evaluate
the biliary system.  I think this should be included.
There were other limitations of the manuscript including its retrospective design?! Please
elaborate.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Remote-controlled cholangiography injection device: First clinical study in China
Version: 3 Date: 24 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors should be commended for the cleverness of this device. I do believe that it shows
promise and could be a game changer for those who administer contrast.
I did find that I had to read the manuscript twice in its current form in order to understand it. Part
of it is grammar and style. Examples include the conclusion paragraph of the abstract. Contacting
patients telephonically instead of by phone, etc.
The design of this study needs to be clarified. Is this a retrospective review of a prospective
database? Please clarify.
I recommend that the authors clearly state from the beginning that all patients had percutaneous
biliary tubes. While it may be intuitive to some, it may be confusing for others.
It is unclear to me why ERCP is not mentioned in this manuscript as a way to assess the biliary
system?  While not the essence of the paper, the authors do discuss other modalities to evaluate
the biliary system.  I think this should be included.
There were other limitations of the manuscript including its retrospective design?! Please
elaborate.
assistant