Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Duodenal perforations secondary to a migrated biliary plasti c stent successfully treated by 
endoscope: case -report and review of the literature.  
 
Version: 0 Date: 19 Dec 2019  
 
Reviewer: Yousuke Nakai  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is a case report of stent migration after plastic stent placement.  
 
1. The authors should summarize the literature review based on Table 2. Both Tables 1 and 2 are 
not m entioned in the text.  
 
2. The Ct image of Figure 1 is difficult to understand. Please add arrow.  
 
Was there any case with air in the peritoneum or retroperitoneum? Please add the image. In case 
3 was CT performed?  
 
3. how was the size of defect measured in ca se 2?  
 
4. The unit of WBC was not unified in cases 1 and 3.  
 
5. It is important to use CO2, not air, insufflation during perforation closure.  
 
6. The authors discussed reference 15 and stent length was one of the risk factors. Please clarify 
whether short or long stent is a risk factor.  
 
7. Please have your text checked by a native English speaker.  
 
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 authors.  
 
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:  
 
Not suitable f or publication unless extensively edited  
 
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 recei ved 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 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.  
 
None  
 
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 peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Duodenal perforations secondary to a migrated biliary plasti c stent successfully treated by 
endoscope: case -report and review of the literature.  
 
Version: 0 Date: 19 Dec 2019  
 
Reviewer: Yousuke Nakai  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is a case report of stent migration after plastic stent placement.  
 
1. The authors should summarize the literature review based on Table 2. Both Tables 1 and 2 are 
not m entioned in the text.  
 
2. The Ct image of Figure 1 is difficult to understand. Please add arrow.  
 
Was there any case with air in the peritoneum or retroperitoneum? Please add the image. In case 
3 was CT performed?  
 
3. how was the size of defect measured in ca se 2?  
 
4. The unit of WBC was not unified in cases 1 and 3.  
 
5. It is important to use CO2, not air, insufflation during perforation closure.  
 
6. The authors discussed reference 15 and stent length was one of the risk factors. Please clarify 
whether short or long stent is a risk factor.  
 
7. Please have your text checked by a native English speaker.  
 
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 authors.  
 
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:  
 
Not suitable f or publication unless extensively edited  
 
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 recei ved 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 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.  
 
None  
 
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 peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Duodenal perforations secondary to a migrated biliary plasti c stent successfully treated by 
endoscope: case -report and review of the literature.  
 
Version: 0 Date: 19 Dec 2019  
 
Reviewer: Yousuke Nakai  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is a case report of stent migration after plastic stent placement.  
 
1. The authors should summarize the literature review based on Table 2. Both Tables 1 and 2 are 
not m entioned in the text.  
 
2. The Ct image of Figure 1 is difficult to understand. Please add arrow.  
 
Was there any case with air in the peritoneum or retroperitoneum? Please add the image. In case 
3 was CT performed?  
 
3. how was the size of defect measured in ca se 2?  
 
4. The unit of WBC was not unified in cases 1 and 3.  
 
5. It is important to use CO2, not air, insufflation during perforation closure.  
 
6. The authors discussed reference 15 and stent length was one of the risk factors. Please clarify 
whether short or long stent is a risk factor.  
 
7. Please have your text checked by a native English speaker.  
 
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 authors.  
 
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:  
 
Not suitable f or publication unless extensively edited  
 
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 recei ved 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 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.  
 
None  
 
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 peer review policy of the journal  
assistant