Reviewer ’s report  
Title: Recurren t common bile duct stones as a late complication of endoscopic sphincterotomy  
 
Version: 1 Date: 26 Nov 2017  
 
Reviewer: Cheng -Hsin Chu  
 
Reviewer's report:   
(A) This is a retrospective study cohort with ERCP in 1148 patients .  51 patients out of post -
EST 573 dev eloped recurrent CBD stones in them  
 
1. Dilated CBD more than 12 mm, 2. Stricture of  major papillaost -ES to 2 -5 mm 3. presence of 
the ampulla within or on the edge of a duodenal diverticulum  
 How about the type of JPD categorization and size measuring you  adopt ?  (J Gastroenterol 
Hepatol, 2013. 28(5): p. 893 -8  ) and number (or %) of patient cirrhosis (T. -J. Tsai et al. / 
Journal of the Chinese Medical Association 75 (2012) ) and method of stones extraction; such as 
basket, balloon or mechanical basket ?  
 
(B) The time to recurrence ranged from 6 months to 15 years ( mean 3.3 years) . Do you had the 
above analysis and distribution curve  in incidence (shown as Figure 2) ?   
(C) Does the number of ERCP performed in single patient relate to the CBD stones rec urrence 
early or more frequent ?  
(D) Do you had a new findings or comparison in long -term outcome between Tsujino,T et al. and 
the reported your study ( ERCP+balloon vs ERCP+ES ) ?  
(E) What is your explanation or hypothesis in the more dilated CBD size the more easy CBD 
stones recurrence ?  
---Dyskinesia and/or delay biliary transit ?  
---Incompetency of ampulla of Vater ?  
(F) Do you have an analysis of clinical difference in the pa tients group early recurrent CBDs 
within one year and delay CBDs recurrence more than 10 years ?  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the a uthors.  
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 supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to t he 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:  
Acceptable  
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 publicatio n 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 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 atta chments 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: Recurren t common bile duct stones as a late complication of endoscopic sphincterotomy  
 
Version: 1 Date: 26 Nov 2017  
 
Reviewer: Cheng -Hsin Chu  
 
Reviewer's report:   
(A) This is a retrospective study cohort with ERCP in 1148 patients .  51 patients out of post -
EST 573 dev eloped recurrent CBD stones in them  
 
1. Dilated CBD more than 12 mm, 2. Stricture of  major papillaost -ES to 2 -5 mm 3. presence of 
the ampulla within or on the edge of a duodenal diverticulum  
 How about the type of JPD categorization and size measuring you  adopt ?  (J Gastroenterol 
Hepatol, 2013. 28(5): p. 893 -8  ) and number (or %) of patient cirrhosis (T. -J. Tsai et al. / 
Journal of the Chinese Medical Association 75 (2012) ) and method of stones extraction; such as 
basket, balloon or mechanical basket ?  
 
(B) The time to recurrence ranged from 6 months to 15 years ( mean 3.3 years) . Do you had the 
above analysis and distribution curve  in incidence (shown as Figure 2) ?   
(C) Does the number of ERCP performed in single patient relate to the CBD stones rec urrence 
early or more frequent ?  
(D) Do you had a new findings or comparison in long -term outcome between Tsujino,T et al. and 
the reported your study ( ERCP+balloon vs ERCP+ES ) ?  
(E) What is your explanation or hypothesis in the more dilated CBD size the more easy CBD 
stones recurrence ?  
---Dyskinesia and/or delay biliary transit ?  
---Incompetency of ampulla of Vater ?  
(F) Do you have an analysis of clinical difference in the pa tients group early recurrent CBDs 
within one year and delay CBDs recurrence more than 10 years ?  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the a uthors.  
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 supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to t he 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:  
Acceptable  
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 publicatio n 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 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 atta chments 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: Recurren t common bile duct stones as a late complication of endoscopic sphincterotomy  
 
Version: 1 Date: 26 Nov 2017  
 
Reviewer: Cheng -Hsin Chu  
 
Reviewer's report:   
(A) This is a retrospective study cohort with ERCP in 1148 patients .  51 patients out of post -
EST 573 dev eloped recurrent CBD stones in them  
 
1. Dilated CBD more than 12 mm, 2. Stricture of  major papillaost -ES to 2 -5 mm 3. presence of 
the ampulla within or on the edge of a duodenal diverticulum  
 How about the type of JPD categorization and size measuring you  adopt ?  (J Gastroenterol 
Hepatol, 2013. 28(5): p. 893 -8  ) and number (or %) of patient cirrhosis (T. -J. Tsai et al. / 
Journal of the Chinese Medical Association 75 (2012) ) and method of stones extraction; such as 
basket, balloon or mechanical basket ?  
 
(B) The time to recurrence ranged from 6 months to 15 years ( mean 3.3 years) . Do you had the 
above analysis and distribution curve  in incidence (shown as Figure 2) ?   
(C) Does the number of ERCP performed in single patient relate to the CBD stones rec urrence 
early or more frequent ?  
(D) Do you had a new findings or comparison in long -term outcome between Tsujino,T et al. and 
the reported your study ( ERCP+balloon vs ERCP+ES ) ?  
(E) What is your explanation or hypothesis in the more dilated CBD size the more easy CBD 
stones recurrence ?  
---Dyskinesia and/or delay biliary transit ?  
---Incompetency of ampulla of Vater ?  
(F) Do you have an analysis of clinical difference in the pa tients group early recurrent CBDs 
within one year and delay CBDs recurrence more than 10 years ?  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the a uthors.  
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 supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to t he 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:  
Acceptable  
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 publicatio n 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 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 atta chments 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