Title: Choledocholithiasis as a risk factor for cholangiocarcinoma: a nationwide retrospective
cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 21 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
I thank the authors for undertaking this research and for providing valuable evidence from a
nationwide cohort.
I have one major comment regarding the manuscript, which pertains to revising the methodology
section for greater clarity and coherence. There is potential for confusion among readers, as
some content that should belong in the methodology is currently included in the introduction.
Additionally, some results are reported that are not explicitly described in the methodology.
Additionally, the terminology should be sufficiently clear to accommodate researchers
unfamiliar with the databases used in South Korea. For example, the phrase "another for specific
information on provided services" on lines 95–96 could benefit from additional explanation.
Overall, the methodology should be both comprehensive to present all the work that has been
done and clear so all readers could benefit and understand the research.
Specific suggestions are as follows:
1. On page 4, the databases are explained in two sections: introduction and methods. I suggest
a clearer and more coherent section only in the methodology.
2. On page 4, the ethical approvals are discussed in the database section which seems a bit out
of order. I recommend a separate section for ethical considerations.
3. On page 6, lines 149–150, please consider adding the raw numbers alongside the percentages
in parentheses for clarity.
4. Results are reported for the first two years and the subsequent years, but this distinction is
not specified in the methods section. I suggest ensuring consistency between the methods and
results in terms of describing the analyses and findings.
5. Similarly, an analysis excluding cases from the first two years is presented without prior
mention in the methods section. I recommend adding all analyses in the methods section.
6. On page 17, Table 2's title reads "before" diagnosis, but the table states "within 0-2 years." I
suggest consistent terminology to avoid confusion.
Title: Choledocholithiasis as a risk factor for cholangiocarcinoma: a nationwide retrospective
cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 21 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
I thank the authors for undertaking this research and for providing valuable evidence from a
nationwide cohort.
I have one major comment regarding the manuscript, which pertains to revising the methodology
section for greater clarity and coherence. There is potential for confusion among readers, as
some content that should belong in the methodology is currently included in the introduction.
Additionally, some results are reported that are not explicitly described in the methodology.
Additionally, the terminology should be sufficiently clear to accommodate researchers
unfamiliar with the databases used in South Korea. For example, the phrase "another for specific
information on provided services" on lines 95–96 could benefit from additional explanation.
Overall, the methodology should be both comprehensive to present all the work that has been
done and clear so all readers could benefit and understand the research.
Specific suggestions are as follows:
1. On page 4, the databases are explained in two sections: introduction and methods. I suggest
a clearer and more coherent section only in the methodology.
2. On page 4, the ethical approvals are discussed in the database section which seems a bit out
of order. I recommend a separate section for ethical considerations.
3. On page 6, lines 149–150, please consider adding the raw numbers alongside the percentages
in parentheses for clarity.
4. Results are reported for the first two years and the subsequent years, but this distinction is
not specified in the methods section. I suggest ensuring consistency between the methods and
results in terms of describing the analyses and findings.
5. Similarly, an analysis excluding cases from the first two years is presented without prior
mention in the methods section. I recommend adding all analyses in the methods section.
6. On page 17, Table 2's title reads "before" diagnosis, but the table states "within 0-2 years." I
suggest consistent terminology to avoid confusion.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Choledocholithiasis as a risk factor for cholangiocarcinoma: a nationwide retrospective
cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 21 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
I thank the authors for undertaking this research and for providing valuable evidence from a
nationwide cohort.
I have one major comment regarding the manuscript, which pertains to revising the methodology
section for greater clarity and coherence. There is potential for confusion among readers, as
some content that should belong in the methodology is currently included in the introduction.
Additionally, some results are reported that are not explicitly described in the methodology.
Additionally, the terminology should be sufficiently clear to accommodate researchers
unfamiliar with the databases used in South Korea. For example, the phrase "another for specific
information on provided services" on lines 95–96 could benefit from additional explanation.
Overall, the methodology should be both comprehensive to present all the work that has been
done and clear so all readers could benefit and understand the research.
Specific suggestions are as follows:
1. On page 4, the databases are explained in two sections: introduction and methods. I suggest
a clearer and more coherent section only in the methodology.
2. On page 4, the ethical approvals are discussed in the database section which seems a bit out
of order. I recommend a separate section for ethical considerations.
3. On page 6, lines 149–150, please consider adding the raw numbers alongside the percentages
in parentheses for clarity.
4. Results are reported for the first two years and the subsequent years, but this distinction is
not specified in the methods section. I suggest ensuring consistency between the methods and
results in terms of describing the analyses and findings.
5. Similarly, an analysis excluding cases from the first two years is presented without prior
mention in the methods section. I recommend adding all analyses in the methods section.
6. On page 17, Table 2's title reads "before" diagnosis, but the table states "within 0-2 years." I
suggest consistent terminology to avoid confusion.
assistant