Title: Diagnosis and management of type II endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-
related perforations: a multicenter retrospective study
Version: 2 Date: 19 Jun 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract introduction is not coherent to the results and conclusion Methods should mention
from where the data come from Results are better to include numerical values  Last sentence of
conclusions should refer to hospital stay, so that it would be coherent to the results
Main text in the introduction authors should mention that although in older publications
mortality tended to be high it has been reduced  in the time been and stress in what way mortality
has changed and the risk factors for increased mortality and hospitalisation Methods should
mention if indications for ERCP were recorded as well what tests were evaluated after 6 and
12 hours What is the hospital practice is not clear Do they test every patient or only those
with suspicious symptomatology ?  What were the indications for CT apart from  abdominal
pain or back pain? Were there any cases without abdominal pain diagnosed by CT performed
due to unexplained biochemistry or elevation of inflammatory markers? Time and indications
for absess drainage under CT guidance should be mentioned That were the indications for
refeeding ? What were criteria for antibiotics selection? Was there a definite protocol? Results
should include indications for ERCP if available Sings and symptoms should be devided if
there is an incoherence to entry findings and signs and symptoms during patient hospitalisation
Time to diagnosis for the two groups that are statistically significantly different should be given
(numerical values ) Difficulty of ERCPs might be given only in the relevant Table but numerical
values for type II perforations should be given in the text Only statistical significant differences
should be mentioned Authors should not compare three values unless they use ANOVA or Chi-
square test 2X3 which they donot mention in the statistics  Numerical values should be given
for hospital stay in the three study groups.  Comparisons for mortality are not suitable If there
are adequate persons in each patient group patients with early and late stent placement should
be compared.  Discussion should be modofied adequately
Title: Diagnosis and management of type II endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-
related perforations: a multicenter retrospective study
Version: 2 Date: 19 Jun 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract introduction is not coherent to the results and conclusion Methods should mention
from where the data come from Results are better to include numerical values  Last sentence of
conclusions should refer to hospital stay, so that it would be coherent to the results
Main text in the introduction authors should mention that although in older publications
mortality tended to be high it has been reduced  in the time been and stress in what way mortality
has changed and the risk factors for increased mortality and hospitalisation Methods should
mention if indications for ERCP were recorded as well what tests were evaluated after 6 and
12 hours What is the hospital practice is not clear Do they test every patient or only those
with suspicious symptomatology ?  What were the indications for CT apart from  abdominal
pain or back pain? Were there any cases without abdominal pain diagnosed by CT performed
due to unexplained biochemistry or elevation of inflammatory markers? Time and indications
for absess drainage under CT guidance should be mentioned That were the indications for
refeeding ? What were criteria for antibiotics selection? Was there a definite protocol? Results
should include indications for ERCP if available Sings and symptoms should be devided if
there is an incoherence to entry findings and signs and symptoms during patient hospitalisation
Time to diagnosis for the two groups that are statistically significantly different should be given
(numerical values ) Difficulty of ERCPs might be given only in the relevant Table but numerical
values for type II perforations should be given in the text Only statistical significant differences
should be mentioned Authors should not compare three values unless they use ANOVA or Chi-
square test 2X3 which they donot mention in the statistics  Numerical values should be given
for hospital stay in the three study groups.  Comparisons for mortality are not suitable If there
are adequate persons in each patient group patients with early and late stent placement should
be compared.  Discussion should be modofied adequately
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Diagnosis and management of type II endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-
related perforations: a multicenter retrospective study
Version: 2 Date: 19 Jun 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract introduction is not coherent to the results and conclusion Methods should mention
from where the data come from Results are better to include numerical values  Last sentence of
conclusions should refer to hospital stay, so that it would be coherent to the results
Main text in the introduction authors should mention that although in older publications
mortality tended to be high it has been reduced  in the time been and stress in what way mortality
has changed and the risk factors for increased mortality and hospitalisation Methods should
mention if indications for ERCP were recorded as well what tests were evaluated after 6 and
12 hours What is the hospital practice is not clear Do they test every patient or only those
with suspicious symptomatology ?  What were the indications for CT apart from  abdominal
pain or back pain? Were there any cases without abdominal pain diagnosed by CT performed
due to unexplained biochemistry or elevation of inflammatory markers? Time and indications
for absess drainage under CT guidance should be mentioned That were the indications for
refeeding ? What were criteria for antibiotics selection? Was there a definite protocol? Results
should include indications for ERCP if available Sings and symptoms should be devided if
there is an incoherence to entry findings and signs and symptoms during patient hospitalisation
Time to diagnosis for the two groups that are statistically significantly different should be given
(numerical values ) Difficulty of ERCPs might be given only in the relevant Table but numerical
values for type II perforations should be given in the text Only statistical significant differences
should be mentioned Authors should not compare three values unless they use ANOVA or Chi-
square test 2X3 which they donot mention in the statistics  Numerical values should be given
for hospital stay in the three study groups.  Comparisons for mortality are not suitable If there
are adequate persons in each patient group patients with early and late stent placement should
be compared.  Discussion should be modofied adequately
assistant