Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Duodenal perforat ions secondary to a migrated biliary plasti c stent successfully treated by 
endoscope: case -report and review of the literature.  
 
Version: 1 Date: 15 Mar 2020  
 
Reviewer: Sang -Heum Park  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading your report as an 
attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated versions of manuscripts, graphs, 
supporting materials or other aspects of your report which cannot be included in a text format.  
 
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.  
 
Thanks for your revision. However, I think that some additional revisions are required to b e 
helpful for the readers.  
 
(1) The lines specified by the author does not match the lines of the revised manuscript 
submitted. Also cases of metallic stent were not deleted in Table 2,  
 
(2) In all 3 cases you described, the stent type was missing. In other words, it is necessary to 
describe whether it was straight, single pigtail or double pigtail. Also, in Table 2, which 
summarized the case reports to date, the type of stent is required. And if possible, please 
also add the name of the manufacturer.  
 
(3) In the 2nd case, it was stated that he was discharged 24 days after surgery. What kind of 
surgery were performed additionally after endoscopic treatment ?  
 
(4) In order to become a more educational report, it is necessary to suggest the avoidable risk 
factors of duodenal perforation by referring to the cases of authors and previously 
reported cases in Table 2. Although the previous others' articles stated that duodenal 
perforation was independent of the stent type, the authors recommended a pigtail stent in 
the revised manuscript. I think this would be a very important suggestion, but please 
provide a rationale for it.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the au thors.  
 
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 a dditional 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:  
 
Needs  some language corrections before being published  
 
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, fees, funding, or sa lary 
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 for 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 al l 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 understand that my na me 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 availab le under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any co mments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will n ot be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Duodenal perforat ions secondary to a migrated biliary plasti c stent successfully treated by 
endoscope: case -report and review of the literature.  
 
Version: 1 Date: 15 Mar 2020  
 
Reviewer: Sang -Heum Park  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading your report as an 
attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated versions of manuscripts, graphs, 
supporting materials or other aspects of your report which cannot be included in a text format.  
 
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.  
 
Thanks for your revision. However, I think that some additional revisions are required to b e 
helpful for the readers.  
 
(1) The lines specified by the author does not match the lines of the revised manuscript 
submitted. Also cases of metallic stent were not deleted in Table 2,  
 
(2) In all 3 cases you described, the stent type was missing. In other words, it is necessary to 
describe whether it was straight, single pigtail or double pigtail. Also, in Table 2, which 
summarized the case reports to date, the type of stent is required. And if possible, please 
also add the name of the manufacturer.  
 
(3) In the 2nd case, it was stated that he was discharged 24 days after surgery. What kind of 
surgery were performed additionally after endoscopic treatment ?  
 
(4) In order to become a more educational report, it is necessary to suggest the avoidable risk 
factors of duodenal perforation by referring to the cases of authors and previously 
reported cases in Table 2. Although the previous others' articles stated that duodenal 
perforation was independent of the stent type, the authors recommended a pigtail stent in 
the revised manuscript. I think this would be a very important suggestion, but please 
provide a rationale for it.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the au thors.  
 
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 a dditional 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:  
 
Needs  some language corrections before being published  
 
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, fees, funding, or sa lary 
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 for 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 al l 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 understand that my na me 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 availab le under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any co mments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will n ot be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Duodenal perforat ions secondary to a migrated biliary plasti c stent successfully treated by 
endoscope: case -report and review of the literature.  
 
Version: 1 Date: 15 Mar 2020  
 
Reviewer: Sang -Heum Park  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading your report as an 
attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated versions of manuscripts, graphs, 
supporting materials or other aspects of your report which cannot be included in a text format.  
 
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.  
 
Thanks for your revision. However, I think that some additional revisions are required to b e 
helpful for the readers.  
 
(1) The lines specified by the author does not match the lines of the revised manuscript 
submitted. Also cases of metallic stent were not deleted in Table 2,  
 
(2) In all 3 cases you described, the stent type was missing. In other words, it is necessary to 
describe whether it was straight, single pigtail or double pigtail. Also, in Table 2, which 
summarized the case reports to date, the type of stent is required. And if possible, please 
also add the name of the manufacturer.  
 
(3) In the 2nd case, it was stated that he was discharged 24 days after surgery. What kind of 
surgery were performed additionally after endoscopic treatment ?  
 
(4) In order to become a more educational report, it is necessary to suggest the avoidable risk 
factors of duodenal perforation by referring to the cases of authors and previously 
reported cases in Table 2. Although the previous others' articles stated that duodenal 
perforation was independent of the stent type, the authors recommended a pigtail stent in 
the revised manuscript. I think this would be a very important suggestion, but please 
provide a rationale for it.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the au thors.  
 
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 a dditional 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:  
 
Needs  some language corrections before being published  
 
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, fees, funding, or sa lary 
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 for 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 al l 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 understand that my na me 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 availab le under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any co mments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will n ot be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant