Title: Clinical outcomes of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography after Billroth II
anastomosis: A comparison of gastroscope and duodenoscope
Version: 2 Date: 21 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Overall, the manuscript has been strengthened . While the retrospective design and limited
sample size remain unavoidable limitations, the transparency and detail provided in the revised
manuscript mitigate these concerns to a reasonable extent.
Minor Revision Suggestions:
-Ensure that all additions to the Discussion and Procedure sections referenced in the responses
are clearly reflected in the final manuscript.
-Consider tightening some of the language in the revised Limitations section for improved
readability and flow.
-If feasible, briefly mention any plans for future prospective or multicenter studies in the
Conclusion to emphasize the study’s role in guiding future work.
Title: Clinical outcomes of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography after Billroth II
anastomosis: A comparison of gastroscope and duodenoscope
Version: 2 Date: 21 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Overall, the manuscript has been strengthened . While the retrospective design and limited
sample size remain unavoidable limitations, the transparency and detail provided in the revised
manuscript mitigate these concerns to a reasonable extent.
Minor Revision Suggestions:
-Ensure that all additions to the Discussion and Procedure sections referenced in the responses
are clearly reflected in the final manuscript.
-Consider tightening some of the language in the revised Limitations section for improved
readability and flow.
-If feasible, briefly mention any plans for future prospective or multicenter studies in the
Conclusion to emphasize the study’s role in guiding future work.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Clinical outcomes of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography after Billroth II
anastomosis: A comparison of gastroscope and duodenoscope
Version: 2 Date: 21 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Anwar Ashraf Abouelnasr
Reviewer's report:
Overall, the manuscript has been strengthened . While the retrospective design and limited
sample size remain unavoidable limitations, the transparency and detail provided in the revised
manuscript mitigate these concerns to a reasonable extent.
Minor Revision Suggestions:
-Ensure that all additions to the Discussion and Procedure sections referenced in the responses
are clearly reflected in the final manuscript.
-Consider tightening some of the language in the revised Limitations section for improved
readability and flow.
-If feasible, briefly mention any plans for future prospective or multicenter studies in the
Conclusion to emphasize the study’s role in guiding future work.
assistant