Title: Title # Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage-based saline-injection ultrasound: an  imaging
technique for remnant stone detection after retrograde cholangiopancreatography
Version: 4 Date: 28 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS:
Interesting study. Authors corrected addressed errors.
I would like to congratulate the authors and thank them for addressing the corrections.
The authors corrected figure 2 after repeating the calculations.
Authors referred to the size of meaningful stone more than 5 mm; it will be helpful if this is
mentioned in the discussion while referring to previous validated studies.
Novel term has been corrected, as requested.
Limitations of this study should be added in the discussion section with any possible future
implications."
Title: Title # Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage-based saline-injection ultrasound: an  imaging
technique for remnant stone detection after retrograde cholangiopancreatography
Version: 4 Date: 28 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS:
Interesting study. Authors corrected addressed errors.
I would like to congratulate the authors and thank them for addressing the corrections.
The authors corrected figure 2 after repeating the calculations.
Authors referred to the size of meaningful stone more than 5 mm; it will be helpful if this is
mentioned in the discussion while referring to previous validated studies.
Novel term has been corrected, as requested.
Limitations of this study should be added in the discussion section with any possible future
implications."
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Title # Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage-based saline-injection ultrasound: an  imaging
technique for remnant stone detection after retrograde cholangiopancreatography
Version: 4 Date: 28 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS:
Interesting study. Authors corrected addressed errors.
I would like to congratulate the authors and thank them for addressing the corrections.
The authors corrected figure 2 after repeating the calculations.
Authors referred to the size of meaningful stone more than 5 mm; it will be helpful if this is
mentioned in the discussion while referring to previous validated studies.
Novel term has been corrected, as requested.
Limitations of this study should be added in the discussion section with any possible future
implications."
assistant