Title: Endobiliary radiofrequency ablation in recurrence and unresectable perihilar
cholangiocarcinoma
Version: 4 Date: 16 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
Major revise:
1. Table 2 shows that the overall incidence of cholangitis (mild + severe) is extremely high—
72.7% in the EBRFA group and 52.9% in the SEMS group. No definition or diagnostic criteria
for cholangitis are provided, making it difficult to assess the clinical relevance or compare
with existing literature. Given the high incidence, the conclusion that EBRFA is “safe” seems
overstated.
2. Several statements in the discussion overstate the findings. For example, phrases such as
“clinical efficacy... has been consistently improved” and “success rates of more than 90%” are
not directly supported by this study’s data. Moreover, claims of practicality and safety should be
qualified, as adverse event rates were numerically higher in the EBRFA group and no procedural
efficiency data were reported. I recommend moderating these conclusions to better align with
the results presented.
Minor revise:
3. In the results section, the proportion of double stent use is described as "1/39 (97.4%)", which
appears to be a typographical error. Given the fraction, the correct percentage should be 2.6%,
not 97.4%. Please revise this to avoid confusion.
Title: Endobiliary radiofrequency ablation in recurrence and unresectable perihilar
cholangiocarcinoma
Version: 4 Date: 16 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
Major revise:
1. Table 2 shows that the overall incidence of cholangitis (mild + severe) is extremely high—
72.7% in the EBRFA group and 52.9% in the SEMS group. No definition or diagnostic criteria
for cholangitis are provided, making it difficult to assess the clinical relevance or compare
with existing literature. Given the high incidence, the conclusion that EBRFA is “safe” seems
overstated.
2. Several statements in the discussion overstate the findings. For example, phrases such as
“clinical efficacy... has been consistently improved” and “success rates of more than 90%” are
not directly supported by this study’s data. Moreover, claims of practicality and safety should be
qualified, as adverse event rates were numerically higher in the EBRFA group and no procedural
efficiency data were reported. I recommend moderating these conclusions to better align with
the results presented.
Minor revise:
3. In the results section, the proportion of double stent use is described as "1/39 (97.4%)", which
appears to be a typographical error. Given the fraction, the correct percentage should be 2.6%,
not 97.4%. Please revise this to avoid confusion.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Endobiliary radiofrequency ablation in recurrence and unresectable perihilar
cholangiocarcinoma
Version: 4 Date: 16 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
Major revise:
1. Table 2 shows that the overall incidence of cholangitis (mild + severe) is extremely high—
72.7% in the EBRFA group and 52.9% in the SEMS group. No definition or diagnostic criteria
for cholangitis are provided, making it difficult to assess the clinical relevance or compare
with existing literature. Given the high incidence, the conclusion that EBRFA is “safe” seems
overstated.
2. Several statements in the discussion overstate the findings. For example, phrases such as
“clinical efficacy... has been consistently improved” and “success rates of more than 90%” are
not directly supported by this study’s data. Moreover, claims of practicality and safety should be
qualified, as adverse event rates were numerically higher in the EBRFA group and no procedural
efficiency data were reported. I recommend moderating these conclusions to better align with
the results presented.
Minor revise:
3. In the results section, the proportion of double stent use is described as "1/39 (97.4%)", which
appears to be a typographical error. Given the fraction, the correct percentage should be 2.6%,
not 97.4%. Please revise this to avoid confusion.
assistant