Title: Efficacy and safety of Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic
cholangial drainage in the treatment of advanced hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review
and meta-analysis
Version: 9 Date: 27 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
1. The description of PTCD in the introduction should not be integrated into the second
paragraph; it should be described separately in a new paragraph.
2. The introduction section's logical flow and language expression need further adjustment and
revision.
3. In the first paragraph of the discussion section, the sentence "In contrast, PTCD is less difficult
to perform, but its success rate is largely dependent on the condition of the bile duct, with higher
success rates when the diameter of the bile duct exceeds 0.4 cm." inaccurately describes the
situation. For HCC patients, the bile ducts are generally dilated, and it is rare for the bile duct
diameter to be less than 0.4 cm. Thus, the description in this sentence is inappropriate.
4. The manuscript describes PTCD as more effective than ENBD, yet in the Conclusions section
(line 55 and 250), the authors state that "there was no significant difference in TBIL change after
drainage between the ENBD group and the PTCD group," which is confusing.
5. The logical flow in some parts of the manuscript is somewhat disorganized; revising the
manuscript for a clearer logical structure is recommended.
6. The language throughout the manuscript needs further refinement.
Title: Efficacy and safety of Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic
cholangial drainage in the treatment of advanced hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review
and meta-analysis
Version: 9 Date: 27 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
1. The description of PTCD in the introduction should not be integrated into the second
paragraph; it should be described separately in a new paragraph.
2. The introduction section's logical flow and language expression need further adjustment and
revision.
3. In the first paragraph of the discussion section, the sentence "In contrast, PTCD is less difficult
to perform, but its success rate is largely dependent on the condition of the bile duct, with higher
success rates when the diameter of the bile duct exceeds 0.4 cm." inaccurately describes the
situation. For HCC patients, the bile ducts are generally dilated, and it is rare for the bile duct
diameter to be less than 0.4 cm. Thus, the description in this sentence is inappropriate.
4. The manuscript describes PTCD as more effective than ENBD, yet in the Conclusions section
(line 55 and 250), the authors state that "there was no significant difference in TBIL change after
drainage between the ENBD group and the PTCD group," which is confusing.
5. The logical flow in some parts of the manuscript is somewhat disorganized; revising the
manuscript for a clearer logical structure is recommended.
6. The language throughout the manuscript needs further refinement.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Efficacy and safety of Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic
cholangial drainage in the treatment of advanced hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review
and meta-analysis
Version: 9 Date: 27 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
1. The description of PTCD in the introduction should not be integrated into the second
paragraph; it should be described separately in a new paragraph.
2. The introduction section's logical flow and language expression need further adjustment and
revision.
3. In the first paragraph of the discussion section, the sentence "In contrast, PTCD is less difficult
to perform, but its success rate is largely dependent on the condition of the bile duct, with higher
success rates when the diameter of the bile duct exceeds 0.4 cm." inaccurately describes the
situation. For HCC patients, the bile ducts are generally dilated, and it is rare for the bile duct
diameter to be less than 0.4 cm. Thus, the description in this sentence is inappropriate.
4. The manuscript describes PTCD as more effective than ENBD, yet in the Conclusions section
(line 55 and 250), the authors state that "there was no significant difference in TBIL change after
drainage between the ENBD group and the PTCD group," which is confusing.
5. The logical flow in some parts of the manuscript is somewhat disorganized; revising the
manuscript for a clearer logical structure is recommended.
6. The language throughout the manuscript needs further refinement.
assistant