Title: Factors associated with patency of self-expandable metal stents in malignant biliary
obstruction
Version: 3 Date: 11 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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 sufficient 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 - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I read with interest the revised article by Suksai et al. The authors
have made substantive revisions based on reviewers comment. I have only two comments:
1. The authors should change in the methods: Primary outcome were SEMS patency and factors
associated with SEMS patency.
2. Why did the authors not include size of tumor in multivariate analysis? The univariate statistic
was significant and should be considered for multivariate analysis as well.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Please the comments above."
Title: Factors associated with patency of self-expandable metal stents in malignant biliary
obstruction
Version: 3 Date: 11 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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 sufficient 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 - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I read with interest the revised article by Suksai et al. The authors
have made substantive revisions based on reviewers comment. I have only two comments:
1. The authors should change in the methods: Primary outcome were SEMS patency and factors
associated with SEMS patency.
2. Why did the authors not include size of tumor in multivariate analysis? The univariate statistic
was significant and should be considered for multivariate analysis as well.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Please the comments above."
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Factors associated with patency of self-expandable metal stents in malignant biliary
obstruction
Version: 3 Date: 11 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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 sufficient 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 - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I read with interest the revised article by Suksai et al. The authors
have made substantive revisions based on reviewers comment. I have only two comments:
1. The authors should change in the methods: Primary outcome were SEMS patency and factors
associated with SEMS patency.
2. Why did the authors not include size of tumor in multivariate analysis? The univariate statistic
was significant and should be considered for multivariate analysis as well.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Please the comments above."
assistant