Reviewer ’s report  
Title:  Limited precut  sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic  papillary balloon dilation for 
common bile duct stone removal in patients with difficult biliary cannulation  
 
Version : 1 Date : 22 May 2016  
 
Reviewer:  Jacob Freedman  
 
Reviewer's report:  
In response to resubmission.  
 
1. Obviously a great portion of the 258 had their ERCP for other indications than bile duct 
stones, it is for me unclear how 200 of the patients that had an ERCP also refused to have an 
ERCP??? Does this mean that they had a first unsuccesful ERCP and then  decided not to 
have a second? How was it with the 58 that were included, was this their index ERCP or was 
it a repeat??  
 
3. Would you really wait for >12 months to do an ERCP in a patient with a drug eluting 
coronoary stent and >1 month after a bar e metal coronary stent? The reason for doing an 
ERCP is usually that it is an emergent och semi -emergent indication like an impacted stone 
or jaundice in need of immediate action.  
 
row 45, rational is a wrong word - acceptable? low?  
row 173, the sentence does not make sense,  
row 208, EST should be written out the first time it is used (endoscopic sphincterotomy)  
row 231 -236, this can be deleted as it belongs in the conclusion.  
row 239, again, rational?  
 
Thanks for an interesting paper  
 
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.  
Unable to assess  
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
Yes 
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:  
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, f ees, 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 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 f or 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 yo u 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 und erstand 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 edi tors, which will not be published.  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
Title:  Limited precut  sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic  papillary balloon dilation for 
common bile duct stone removal in patients with difficult biliary cannulation  
 
Version : 1 Date : 22 May 2016  
 
Reviewer:  Jacob Freedman  
 
Reviewer's report:  
In response to resubmission.  
 
1. Obviously a great portion of the 258 had their ERCP for other indications than bile duct 
stones, it is for me unclear how 200 of the patients that had an ERCP also refused to have an 
ERCP??? Does this mean that they had a first unsuccesful ERCP and then  decided not to 
have a second? How was it with the 58 that were included, was this their index ERCP or was 
it a repeat??  
 
3. Would you really wait for >12 months to do an ERCP in a patient with a drug eluting 
coronoary stent and >1 month after a bar e metal coronary stent? The reason for doing an 
ERCP is usually that it is an emergent och semi -emergent indication like an impacted stone 
or jaundice in need of immediate action.  
 
row 45, rational is a wrong word - acceptable? low?  
row 173, the sentence does not make sense,  
row 208, EST should be written out the first time it is used (endoscopic sphincterotomy)  
row 231 -236, this can be deleted as it belongs in the conclusion.  
row 239, again, rational?  
 
Thanks for an interesting paper  
 
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.  
Unable to assess  
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
Yes 
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:  
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, f ees, 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 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 f or 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 yo u 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 und erstand 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 edi tors, 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:  Limited precut  sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic  papillary balloon dilation for 
common bile duct stone removal in patients with difficult biliary cannulation  
 
Version : 1 Date : 22 May 2016  
 
Reviewer:  Jacob Freedman  
 
Reviewer's report:  
In response to resubmission.  
 
1. Obviously a great portion of the 258 had their ERCP for other indications than bile duct 
stones, it is for me unclear how 200 of the patients that had an ERCP also refused to have an 
ERCP??? Does this mean that they had a first unsuccesful ERCP and then  decided not to 
have a second? How was it with the 58 that were included, was this their index ERCP or was 
it a repeat??  
 
3. Would you really wait for >12 months to do an ERCP in a patient with a drug eluting 
coronoary stent and >1 month after a bar e metal coronary stent? The reason for doing an 
ERCP is usually that it is an emergent och semi -emergent indication like an impacted stone 
or jaundice in need of immediate action.  
 
row 45, rational is a wrong word - acceptable? low?  
row 173, the sentence does not make sense,  
row 208, EST should be written out the first time it is used (endoscopic sphincterotomy)  
row 231 -236, this can be deleted as it belongs in the conclusion.  
row 239, again, rational?  
 
Thanks for an interesting paper  
 
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.  
Unable to assess  
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
Yes 
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:  
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, f ees, 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 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 f or 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 yo u 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 und erstand 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 edi tors, which will not be published.  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant