Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Cholecystectomy outcomes after endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with choledocho -
lithiasis: A meta -analysis  
 
Version: 1 Date: 10 Jan 2020  
 
Reviewer: erkan parlak  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
1. In abstracst; conclusion: The following senteces are wrong: Early endoscopic cholecystectomy 
after removal of common bile duct stones can effectively reduce biliary complications such as 
recurrent pancreat itis, cholangitis and cholecystitis.  
 
The incidence of cholangitis and jaundice in the gallbladder (?) group was also less than the 
preserved gallbladder group (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.26 -0.38; P &lt; 0.00001; I2 = 0%).Also wrong 
in the manuscript.  
 
2. 4922 + 7795 = 12717 , Not 12718, Which one is true ?  
 
3. low -risk group, high -risk group and unidentified risk group.: Is the definition of these terms 
exist in the manuscript ?  
 
4. The suitability of the statistical method used should be evaluated.  
 
5. Al l patients in the ERCP group had sphincterotomy? Or are some of them just balloon dilated? 
Is pancreatitis in this second group?  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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 supporte d by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
 
 
 
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 spec ify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
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 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 p ublication 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.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
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 Acces s 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: Cholecystectomy outcomes after endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with choledocho -
lithiasis: A meta -analysis  
 
Version: 1 Date: 10 Jan 2020  
 
Reviewer: erkan parlak  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
1. In abstracst; conclusion: The following senteces are wrong: Early endoscopic cholecystectomy 
after removal of common bile duct stones can effectively reduce biliary complications such as 
recurrent pancreat itis, cholangitis and cholecystitis.  
 
The incidence of cholangitis and jaundice in the gallbladder (?) group was also less than the 
preserved gallbladder group (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.26 -0.38; P &lt; 0.00001; I2 = 0%).Also wrong 
in the manuscript.  
 
2. 4922 + 7795 = 12717 , Not 12718, Which one is true ?  
 
3. low -risk group, high -risk group and unidentified risk group.: Is the definition of these terms 
exist in the manuscript ?  
 
4. The suitability of the statistical method used should be evaluated.  
 
5. Al l patients in the ERCP group had sphincterotomy? Or are some of them just balloon dilated? 
Is pancreatitis in this second group?  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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 supporte d by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
 
 
 
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 spec ify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
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 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 p ublication 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.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
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 Acces s 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: Cholecystectomy outcomes after endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with choledocho -
lithiasis: A meta -analysis  
 
Version: 1 Date: 10 Jan 2020  
 
Reviewer: erkan parlak  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
1. In abstracst; conclusion: The following senteces are wrong: Early endoscopic cholecystectomy 
after removal of common bile duct stones can effectively reduce biliary complications such as 
recurrent pancreat itis, cholangitis and cholecystitis.  
 
The incidence of cholangitis and jaundice in the gallbladder (?) group was also less than the 
preserved gallbladder group (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.26 -0.38; P &lt; 0.00001; I2 = 0%).Also wrong 
in the manuscript.  
 
2. 4922 + 7795 = 12717 , Not 12718, Which one is true ?  
 
3. low -risk group, high -risk group and unidentified risk group.: Is the definition of these terms 
exist in the manuscript ?  
 
4. The suitability of the statistical method used should be evaluated.  
 
5. Al l patients in the ERCP group had sphincterotomy? Or are some of them just balloon dilated? 
Is pancreatitis in this second group?  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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 supporte d by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
 
 
 
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 spec ify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
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 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 p ublication 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.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
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 Acces s 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