Reviewer ’s report  
Title: Gallbladder function predicts subsequent biliary compli cations in patients with common 
bile duct stones after endoscopic treatment?  
 
Version: 1 Date: 23 Jul 2017  
 
Reviewer: Ahmet Eminler  
 
Revie wer's report:  
Comments for Manuscript Number BMGE -D-17-00010R1  
The authors evaluated the gallbladder function and outcome of patients with  CBDS and an intact 
gallbladder after endoscop ic clearance of the bile duct in this study. They found that gallbladder 
motility function was poorer in patients with a calculus gallbladder, but concluded that it cannot 
predict the recurrent biliary complication. So they adviced  wait and see policy of gallbladder 
management after endoscopic treatment of CBDS .  
Here are my comments about this article.  
 
Major commnets  
1) Have you been any patients with a diagnosis of biliary pancreatitis? Would you recommend 
direct cholecystectomy or follow -up for these pa tients ?  
2) Patients in this study are elderly and patients with comorbidities. So the "wait and see" 
approach may be appropriate, but would you recommend it for younger and fit patients?  
3) -"Animal studies have demonstrated that biliary sphincterotomy ma y cause alternation of 
gallbladder reabsorption, filling and chronic inflammation owing to bacterial contamination of 
bile, so in which cases elective cholecystectomy is warranted[57 -59]."  
 This comment is an old and unproven. Do you have any more recent konwledge about 
this opinion ?  
4) The aim and massage of your study is not clearly mentioned in the conclusion part.  
 
Minor comments  
 
2) Did you mean EPBD and EPLBD at the same definition o r not ? İf they are same please use 
one of them.  
3) Please write the mean age in the results text section  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
Yes 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
Yes 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
No 
Are you able to assess any statistics in th e manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what  aspects require further 
assessment 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:  
Acceptable  
Declaration 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 financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the futu re? 
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 report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my re port to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which 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: Gallbladder function predicts subsequent biliary compli cations in patients with common 
bile duct stones after endoscopic treatment?  
 
Version: 1 Date: 23 Jul 2017  
 
Reviewer: Ahmet Eminler  
 
Revie wer's report:  
Comments for Manuscript Number BMGE -D-17-00010R1  
The authors evaluated the gallbladder function and outcome of patients with  CBDS and an intact 
gallbladder after endoscop ic clearance of the bile duct in this study. They found that gallbladder 
motility function was poorer in patients with a calculus gallbladder, but concluded that it cannot 
predict the recurrent biliary complication. So they adviced  wait and see policy of gallbladder 
management after endoscopic treatment of CBDS .  
Here are my comments about this article.  
 
Major commnets  
1) Have you been any patients with a diagnosis of biliary pancreatitis? Would you recommend 
direct cholecystectomy or follow -up for these pa tients ?  
2) Patients in this study are elderly and patients with comorbidities. So the "wait and see" 
approach may be appropriate, but would you recommend it for younger and fit patients?  
3) -"Animal studies have demonstrated that biliary sphincterotomy ma y cause alternation of 
gallbladder reabsorption, filling and chronic inflammation owing to bacterial contamination of 
bile, so in which cases elective cholecystectomy is warranted[57 -59]."  
 This comment is an old and unproven. Do you have any more recent konwledge about 
this opinion ?  
4) The aim and massage of your study is not clearly mentioned in the conclusion part.  
 
Minor comments  
 
2) Did you mean EPBD and EPLBD at the same definition o r not ? İf they are same please use 
one of them.  
3) Please write the mean age in the results text section  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
Yes 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
Yes 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
No 
Are you able to assess any statistics in th e manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what  aspects require further 
assessment 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:  
Acceptable  
Declaration 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 financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the futu re? 
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 report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my re port to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which 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: Gallbladder function predicts subsequent biliary compli cations in patients with common 
bile duct stones after endoscopic treatment?  
 
Version: 1 Date: 23 Jul 2017  
 
Reviewer: Ahmet Eminler  
 
Revie wer's report:  
Comments for Manuscript Number BMGE -D-17-00010R1  
The authors evaluated the gallbladder function and outcome of patients with  CBDS and an intact 
gallbladder after endoscop ic clearance of the bile duct in this study. They found that gallbladder 
motility function was poorer in patients with a calculus gallbladder, but concluded that it cannot 
predict the recurrent biliary complication. So they adviced  wait and see policy of gallbladder 
management after endoscopic treatment of CBDS .  
Here are my comments about this article.  
 
Major commnets  
1) Have you been any patients with a diagnosis of biliary pancreatitis? Would you recommend 
direct cholecystectomy or follow -up for these pa tients ?  
2) Patients in this study are elderly and patients with comorbidities. So the "wait and see" 
approach may be appropriate, but would you recommend it for younger and fit patients?  
3) -"Animal studies have demonstrated that biliary sphincterotomy ma y cause alternation of 
gallbladder reabsorption, filling and chronic inflammation owing to bacterial contamination of 
bile, so in which cases elective cholecystectomy is warranted[57 -59]."  
 This comment is an old and unproven. Do you have any more recent konwledge about 
this opinion ?  
4) The aim and massage of your study is not clearly mentioned in the conclusion part.  
 
Minor comments  
 
2) Did you mean EPBD and EPLBD at the same definition o r not ? İf they are same please use 
one of them.  
3) Please write the mean age in the results text section  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
Yes 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
Yes 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
No 
Are you able to assess any statistics in th e manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what  aspects require further 
assessment 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:  
Acceptable  
Declaration 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 financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the futu re? 
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 report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my re port to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which 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