Reviewer’ s report
Title: Cholecystectomy outcomes after endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with choledocho-
lithiasis: A meta-analysis
Version: 1Date: 28 Dec 2019
Reviewer: Kook Hyun Kim
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your intensive study about meta-analysis of cholecystectomy outcomes after EST.
It is very informative and it shows the summary of positive effects of post ERCP cholecystectomy.However, it seems that there are several things to be clarified for readers to understand the meta-analysis to some extent more clearly. Here are something to be specified.1. at abstract section, line 39, in the gallbladder group should be changed into the "gallbladderresected group".2. The uploaded figures are not clear at the PDF version. Therefore, I cannot read the figuresclearly.
Could you upload the tables and figures again to see clearly?
3. at page 6, line 37 and line 44, what do [?] mean ?4. at Results section of page 6, line 32, does the gallbladder group mean "the gallbladder resectedgroup" ? please, clarify the group name and use the same name in the whole manuscript in ordernot to be confused, such as: gallbladder resection group, cholecystectomy group, resection group,post-operative resection (at page 7, line 8)5. at Discussion section of page 7, line 38, the wait -and -see procedure versus cholecystectomy ishard to understand. Do you mean that "wait-and-see group, compared with cholecystectomy" ? It
should be clarified on the manuscript.
6. at Discussion section of page 7, line 33, This study compared the effect of cholecystectomy~~to make it clear the meaning, it might be changed into " This study analyzed the effect of ~~ ".7. What is the definition of low and high risk groups at the page 6, line 2-3. ?
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
YesDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
YesAre 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 furtherassessment 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:
AcceptableDeclaration 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 financially from the publication of thismanuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that 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 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 reportincluding 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 CommonsCC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any commentswhich 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: Cholecystectomy outcomes after endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with choledocho-
lithiasis: A meta-analysis
Version: 1Date: 28 Dec 2019
Reviewer: Kook Hyun Kim
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your intensive study about meta-analysis of cholecystectomy outcomes after EST.
It is very informative and it shows the summary of positive effects of post ERCP cholecystectomy.However, it seems that there are several things to be clarified for readers to understand the meta-analysis to some extent more clearly. Here are something to be specified.1. at abstract section, line 39, in the gallbladder group should be changed into the "gallbladderresected group".2. The uploaded figures are not clear at the PDF version. Therefore, I cannot read the figuresclearly.
Could you upload the tables and figures again to see clearly?
3. at page 6, line 37 and line 44, what do [?] mean ?4. at Results section of page 6, line 32, does the gallbladder group mean "the gallbladder resectedgroup" ? please, clarify the group name and use the same name in the whole manuscript in ordernot to be confused, such as: gallbladder resection group, cholecystectomy group, resection group,post-operative resection (at page 7, line 8)5. at Discussion section of page 7, line 38, the wait -and -see procedure versus cholecystectomy ishard to understand. Do you mean that "wait-and-see group, compared with cholecystectomy" ? It
should be clarified on the manuscript.
6. at Discussion section of page 7, line 33, This study compared the effect of cholecystectomy~~to make it clear the meaning, it might be changed into " This study analyzed the effect of ~~ ".7. What is the definition of low and high risk groups at the page 6, line 2-3. ?
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
YesDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
YesAre 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 furtherassessment 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:
AcceptableDeclaration 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 financially from the publication of thismanuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that 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 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 reportincluding 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 CommonsCC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any commentswhich 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: Cholecystectomy outcomes after endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with choledocho-
lithiasis: A meta-analysis
Version: 1Date: 28 Dec 2019
Reviewer: Kook Hyun Kim
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your intensive study about meta-analysis of cholecystectomy outcomes after EST.
It is very informative and it shows the summary of positive effects of post ERCP cholecystectomy.However, it seems that there are several things to be clarified for readers to understand the meta-analysis to some extent more clearly. Here are something to be specified.1. at abstract section, line 39, in the gallbladder group should be changed into the "gallbladderresected group".2. The uploaded figures are not clear at the PDF version. Therefore, I cannot read the figuresclearly.
Could you upload the tables and figures again to see clearly?
3. at page 6, line 37 and line 44, what do [?] mean ?4. at Results section of page 6, line 32, does the gallbladder group mean "the gallbladder resectedgroup" ? please, clarify the group name and use the same name in the whole manuscript in ordernot to be confused, such as: gallbladder resection group, cholecystectomy group, resection group,post-operative resection (at page 7, line 8)5. at Discussion section of page 7, line 38, the wait -and -see procedure versus cholecystectomy ishard to understand. Do you mean that "wait-and-see group, compared with cholecystectomy" ? It
should be clarified on the manuscript.
6. at Discussion section of page 7, line 33, This study compared the effect of cholecystectomy~~to make it clear the meaning, it might be changed into " This study analyzed the effect of ~~ ".7. What is the definition of low and high risk groups at the page 6, line 2-3. ?
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
YesDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
YesAre 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 furtherassessment 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:
AcceptableDeclaration 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 financially from the publication of thismanuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that 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 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 reportincluding 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 CommonsCC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any commentswhich 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