Title: Transmission of oral microbiota to the biliary tract during endoscopic retrograde
cholangiography
Version: 2 Date: 12 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor and authors, thank you for giving me the chance to review this interesting paper
intitled “Transmission of oral microbiota to the biliary tract during endoscopic retrograde
cholangiography”. I raised some queries about this manuscript.
1. In table 1, the statistical comparison of number of patients is unnecessary.
2. In table 1 B), cholangitis is post-ERCP cholangitis?
3. In table 1 B), all variables were involved to multivariate analysis. Only choledocholithiasis,
post OLT should be involved to multivariate analysis.
4. Table 2 is difficult to understand. Besides, statistical comparison isn’t necessary in table 2?
5. In table 2, what does “likely pathogens for no cholangitis” mean?
6. Is the setting of group1 and group2 necessary?
7. In table3 and 5, “Total” is missing.
8. The main themes of this study were: (1) is there contamination of the bile during ERC, (2)
where does it come from, (3) is it clinically relevant? The methods used in this study were too
complicated.
Can authors investigate these main themes by methods as follows?
#extract the bacteria that existed between (oral or pre-ERCP scope) and bile and post-ERCP
scope.
#
#compare the patient characteristics and the amount of extracted bacteria between cholangitis
and no cholangitis.
#
#involve the factors which are significantly different between cholangitis and no cholangitis to
Logistic regression analysis for cholangitis.
#
#involve the factors which are elicited from Logistic regression analysis to Cox proportional
hazards model for hospitalization.
Title: Transmission of oral microbiota to the biliary tract during endoscopic retrograde
cholangiography
Version: 2 Date: 12 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor and authors, thank you for giving me the chance to review this interesting paper
intitled “Transmission of oral microbiota to the biliary tract during endoscopic retrograde
cholangiography”. I raised some queries about this manuscript.
1. In table 1, the statistical comparison of number of patients is unnecessary.
2. In table 1 B), cholangitis is post-ERCP cholangitis?
3. In table 1 B), all variables were involved to multivariate analysis. Only choledocholithiasis,
post OLT should be involved to multivariate analysis.
4. Table 2 is difficult to understand. Besides, statistical comparison isn’t necessary in table 2?
5. In table 2, what does “likely pathogens for no cholangitis” mean?
6. Is the setting of group1 and group2 necessary?
7. In table3 and 5, “Total” is missing.
8. The main themes of this study were: (1) is there contamination of the bile during ERC, (2)
where does it come from, (3) is it clinically relevant? The methods used in this study were too
complicated.
Can authors investigate these main themes by methods as follows?
#extract the bacteria that existed between (oral or pre-ERCP scope) and bile and post-ERCP
scope.
#
#compare the patient characteristics and the amount of extracted bacteria between cholangitis
and no cholangitis.
#
#involve the factors which are significantly different between cholangitis and no cholangitis to
Logistic regression analysis for cholangitis.
#
#involve the factors which are elicited from Logistic regression analysis to Cox proportional
hazards model for hospitalization.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Transmission of oral microbiota to the biliary tract during endoscopic retrograde
cholangiography
Version: 2 Date: 12 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor and authors, thank you for giving me the chance to review this interesting paper
intitled “Transmission of oral microbiota to the biliary tract during endoscopic retrograde
cholangiography”. I raised some queries about this manuscript.
1. In table 1, the statistical comparison of number of patients is unnecessary.
2. In table 1 B), cholangitis is post-ERCP cholangitis?
3. In table 1 B), all variables were involved to multivariate analysis. Only choledocholithiasis,
post OLT should be involved to multivariate analysis.
4. Table 2 is difficult to understand. Besides, statistical comparison isn’t necessary in table 2?
5. In table 2, what does “likely pathogens for no cholangitis” mean?
6. Is the setting of group1 and group2 necessary?
7. In table3 and 5, “Total” is missing.
8. The main themes of this study were: (1) is there contamination of the bile during ERC, (2)
where does it come from, (3) is it clinically relevant? The methods used in this study were too
complicated.
Can authors investigate these main themes by methods as follows?
#extract the bacteria that existed between (oral or pre-ERCP scope) and bile and post-ERCP
scope.
#
#compare the patient characteristics and the amount of extracted bacteria between cholangitis
and no cholangitis.
#
#involve the factors which are significantly different between cholangitis and no cholangitis to
Logistic regression analysis for cholangitis.
#
#involve the factors which are elicited from Logistic regression analysis to Cox proportional
hazards model for hospitalization.
assistant