Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: COMPARISON OF DOUBLE -BALLOON AND SINGLE -BALLOON ENTEROSCOPE  
FOR THERAPEUTIC ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOGRAPHY AFTE R 
ROUX -EN-Y SMALL BOWEL SURGERY  
 
Version: 0 Date: 15 May 2016  
 
Reviewer: Sushil Ahlawat  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Interesting study comparing success of balloon enteroscopy in p erforming ERCP in patients with 
altered anatomy. I would like the authors to point out limitations of  this study, retrospective case 
series, selection bias since there was no ran domization involve d. In addition, did authors use 
other endoscope such as pediatric colonoscope? How does success of balloon enteroscopy 
compare with pediatric colonoscope? What about spiral enteroscope? Some have used this 
method for deep enteroscope. How  did author determine exact length of rouex limb? Were 
operative notes available in all patients and was length specified? What about break down of 
success with respect to intubating enteroenteric anastomosis only but not able to intubate biliary 
enteric l imb, reaching up to ampulla but failure in cannulation, and complete success? How do 
author explain findings of RCTs comparing single vs double balloon enteroscope, which 
conclude that DBE reaches deeper then why DBE was not more successful than SBE in ERC P. 
Authors should also compare their results in discussion with a US study (ref #20) and explain 
differences.  
 
 
 
 
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.  
 
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 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 manuscr ipt: 
 
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 financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, 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 publ ication 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 report  
including 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 Cr eative 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: COMPARISON OF DOUBLE -BALLOON AND SINGLE -BALLOON ENTEROSCOPE  
FOR THERAPEUTIC ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOGRAPHY AFTE R 
ROUX -EN-Y SMALL BOWEL SURGERY  
 
Version: 0 Date: 15 May 2016  
 
Reviewer: Sushil Ahlawat  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Interesting study comparing success of balloon enteroscopy in p erforming ERCP in patients with 
altered anatomy. I would like the authors to point out limitations of  this study, retrospective case 
series, selection bias since there was no ran domization involve d. In addition, did authors use 
other endoscope such as pediatric colonoscope? How does success of balloon enteroscopy 
compare with pediatric colonoscope? What about spiral enteroscope? Some have used this 
method for deep enteroscope. How  did author determine exact length of rouex limb? Were 
operative notes available in all patients and was length specified? What about break down of 
success with respect to intubating enteroenteric anastomosis only but not able to intubate biliary 
enteric l imb, reaching up to ampulla but failure in cannulation, and complete success? How do 
author explain findings of RCTs comparing single vs double balloon enteroscope, which 
conclude that DBE reaches deeper then why DBE was not more successful than SBE in ERC P. 
Authors should also compare their results in discussion with a US study (ref #20) and explain 
differences.  
 
 
 
 
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.  
 
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 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 manuscr ipt: 
 
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 financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, 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 publ ication 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 report  
including 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 Cr eative 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: COMPARISON OF DOUBLE -BALLOON AND SINGLE -BALLOON ENTEROSCOPE  
FOR THERAPEUTIC ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOGRAPHY AFTE R 
ROUX -EN-Y SMALL BOWEL SURGERY  
 
Version: 0 Date: 15 May 2016  
 
Reviewer: Sushil Ahlawat  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Interesting study comparing success of balloon enteroscopy in p erforming ERCP in patients with 
altered anatomy. I would like the authors to point out limitations of  this study, retrospective case 
series, selection bias since there was no ran domization involve d. In addition, did authors use 
other endoscope such as pediatric colonoscope? How does success of balloon enteroscopy 
compare with pediatric colonoscope? What about spiral enteroscope? Some have used this 
method for deep enteroscope. How  did author determine exact length of rouex limb? Were 
operative notes available in all patients and was length specified? What about break down of 
success with respect to intubating enteroenteric anastomosis only but not able to intubate biliary 
enteric l imb, reaching up to ampulla but failure in cannulation, and complete success? How do 
author explain findings of RCTs comparing single vs double balloon enteroscope, which 
conclude that DBE reaches deeper then why DBE was not more successful than SBE in ERC P. 
Authors should also compare their results in discussion with a US study (ref #20) and explain 
differences.  
 
 
 
 
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.  
 
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 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 manuscr ipt: 
 
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 financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, 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 publ ication 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 report  
including 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 Cr eative 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