Reviewer’s report
Title:  Three-hour post-ERCP amylase level: a useful indicator for early prediction of post-ERCP
pancreatitis
Version: 1 Date: 06 Jan 2020
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses  a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the
objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow confidence
in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION  -  Is  the  current  interpretation/discussion  of  the  results  reasonable  and  not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically sound? If
not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: 
Overall, I think it is a reasonably helpful clinical study. It has the potential to improve clinical practice,
if  confirmed  in  prospective  studies.  Limitations  are  not  acknowledged.  English  may  need  to  be
reviewed for style.
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
1. Was the study prospective or retrospective? If retrospective, this fact (and related biases) need to be
highlighted as a limitation in the discussion section.
2. The consensus criteria by Cotton include (among other components) "the necessity for new or
continued hospitalization for at least 2 nights". Why this was not used by the authors?
3. Characteristics of the included patients should be described in more detail. What were their primary
diagnoses? History of pancreatitis prior to current hospitalization? History of PEP? Age? Levels of
bilirubin? Presence of IPMN?
4. Technical aspects of ERCP should be described in more detail. Difficult cannulation of the biliary
orifice? Biliary, pancreatic, or precut sphincterotomy? Balloon dilation of an intact sphincter? Wire
cannulation into the main pancreatic duct? Nondilated bile ducts? Placement of a self-expanding metal
stent? Suspicion of sphincter of Oddi dysfunction? Ampullectomy 
5. Avoid the use of PEP abbreviation in the title.
6. Figures 1-3 are not figures as such and should be omitted.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: 
English may need to be reviewed for style.
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.
No
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further
assessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
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 salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that 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 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.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with declared
or  apparent  competing  interests  are  not  utilized  for  these  reviews.  This  reviewer  has  agreed  to
publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to
Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review  within a specified
timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer recommendation.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for 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 included 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:  Three-hour post-ERCP amylase level: a useful indicator for early prediction of post-ERCP
pancreatitis
Version: 1 Date: 06 Jan 2020
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses  a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the
objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow confidence
in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION  -  Is  the  current  interpretation/discussion  of  the  results  reasonable  and  not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically sound? If
not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: 
Overall, I think it is a reasonably helpful clinical study. It has the potential to improve clinical practice,
if  confirmed  in  prospective  studies.  Limitations  are  not  acknowledged.  English  may  need  to  be
reviewed for style.
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
1. Was the study prospective or retrospective? If retrospective, this fact (and related biases) need to be
highlighted as a limitation in the discussion section.
2. The consensus criteria by Cotton include (among other components) "the necessity for new or
continued hospitalization for at least 2 nights". Why this was not used by the authors?
3. Characteristics of the included patients should be described in more detail. What were their primary
diagnoses? History of pancreatitis prior to current hospitalization? History of PEP? Age? Levels of
bilirubin? Presence of IPMN?
4. Technical aspects of ERCP should be described in more detail. Difficult cannulation of the biliary
orifice? Biliary, pancreatic, or precut sphincterotomy? Balloon dilation of an intact sphincter? Wire
cannulation into the main pancreatic duct? Nondilated bile ducts? Placement of a self-expanding metal
stent? Suspicion of sphincter of Oddi dysfunction? Ampullectomy 
5. Avoid the use of PEP abbreviation in the title.
6. Figures 1-3 are not figures as such and should be omitted.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: 
English may need to be reviewed for style.
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.
No
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further
assessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
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 salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that 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 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.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with declared
or  apparent  competing  interests  are  not  utilized  for  these  reviews.  This  reviewer  has  agreed  to
publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to
Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review  within a specified
timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer recommendation.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for 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 included 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:  Three-hour post-ERCP amylase level: a useful indicator for early prediction of post-ERCP
pancreatitis
Version: 1 Date: 06 Jan 2020
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses  a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the
objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow confidence
in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION  -  Is  the  current  interpretation/discussion  of  the  results  reasonable  and  not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically sound? If
not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: 
Overall, I think it is a reasonably helpful clinical study. It has the potential to improve clinical practice,
if  confirmed  in  prospective  studies.  Limitations  are  not  acknowledged.  English  may  need  to  be
reviewed for style.
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
1. Was the study prospective or retrospective? If retrospective, this fact (and related biases) need to be
highlighted as a limitation in the discussion section.
2. The consensus criteria by Cotton include (among other components) "the necessity for new or
continued hospitalization for at least 2 nights". Why this was not used by the authors?
3. Characteristics of the included patients should be described in more detail. What were their primary
diagnoses? History of pancreatitis prior to current hospitalization? History of PEP? Age? Levels of
bilirubin? Presence of IPMN?
4. Technical aspects of ERCP should be described in more detail. Difficult cannulation of the biliary
orifice? Biliary, pancreatic, or precut sphincterotomy? Balloon dilation of an intact sphincter? Wire
cannulation into the main pancreatic duct? Nondilated bile ducts? Placement of a self-expanding metal
stent? Suspicion of sphincter of Oddi dysfunction? Ampullectomy 
5. Avoid the use of PEP abbreviation in the title.
6. Figures 1-3 are not figures as such and should be omitted.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: 
English may need to be reviewed for style.
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.
No
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further
assessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
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 salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that 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 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.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with declared
or  apparent  competing  interests  are  not  utilized  for  these  reviews.  This  reviewer  has  agreed  to
publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to
Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review  within a specified
timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer recommendation.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for 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 included as confidential comments
to the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
assistant