The reviewer has opted to sign this review, but Journal of Pharmaceutical Research International's privacy policy prevents this.

Content of review 1, reviewed on October 29, 2021

Reviewer’s comment Author’s comment (if agreed with the reviewer, correct the manuscript and highlight that part in the manuscript. It is mandatory that authors should write his/her feedback here)

Compulsory REVISION comments

  1. Тhe abstract is not well structured.

  2. Reference 1 is cited too often.

  3. Gallstones cause biliary obstruction in about 5 out of 1000 people, whereas 10 to 15% of the adult population in the United States will have gallstones at some point in their lives. Gall stones, also known as cholelithiasis, are the precursor of choledocholithiasis, which occurs when gall stones pass through the cystic duct and lodge in the common hepatic ducts, causing an obstruction. At the time of diagnosis, 10 to 15% of patients with gall stones also have common bile duct stones. [1] The occurrence of stones in the common bile duct is known as choledocholithiasis. The presence of common bile duct stones is thought to be prevalent in 1-15 percent of cholelithiasis patients. Choledocholithiasis has been discovered in 4.6 percent to 18.8 percent of cholecystectomy patients. Choledocholithiasis is more common among cholelithiasis patients as they get older. Female patients, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with high serum cholesterol levels are more likely to develop cholelithiasis. Obese people with little physical exercise or those who have recently lost weight are more likely to develop cholesterol stones. Cirrhosis patients, patients receiving total parental nourishment, and those who have had an ileal resection all develop black pigment stones. Brown pigment primary common bile duct stones are formed by nucleating agents such as bacteria. [2] (The initial part of the epidemiology repeats the etiology.)

  4. Furthermore, the presence of a stent within the biliary tree may impair diagnostic imaging's capacity to forecast tumor resectability and the surgeon's ability to establish the proximal tumor extent during the intervention. [4,17-33] (Quotations should be entered in the appropriate places in the paragraph, not mentioned in groups at the end.)

  5. The conclusion repeats what is stated in the text, without a clear opinion on the topic.

Minor REVISION comments

  1. Cholestasis is a decrease in the flow of bile from the liver to the small intestine due to a blockage of the bile duct system. Cholestasis affects a large portion of the population worldwide with significant morbidity and mortality. (Tautology)

  2. Cholestatic liver disease is a type of cholestatic liver disease that In daily clinical practice, liver illness and bile duct tumors are the most common causes of chronic cholestasis. (Tautology)

  3. Cholangiocarcinoma and malignant bile duct obstruction are also caused by bile obstruction. Cholangiocarcinoma (CC) (Tautology)

Optional/General comments

A well-structured propaedeutic article that presents the data on the issue. However, there is no mention of any personal experience of the authors and clear recommendations for dealing with the problem.

PART 2:

Reviewer’s comment  Author’s comment (if agreed with the reviewer, correct the manuscript and highlight that part in the manuscript. It is mandatory that authors should write his/her feedback here)

Are there ethical issues in this manuscript?

No

Are there competing interest issues in this manuscript? No

If plagiarism is suspected, please provide related proofs or web links. I find no evidence of plagiarism.

PART 3: Declaration of Competing Interest of the reviewer:

Here reviewer should declare his/her competing interest. If nothing to declare he/she can write “I declare that I have no competing interest as a reviewer”

PART 4: Objective Evaluation:

Guideline MARKS of this manuscript Give OVERALL MARKS you want to give to this manuscript ( Highest: 10 Lowest: 0 )
5

Guideline: Accept As It Is: (>9-10) Minor Revision: (>8-9) Major Revision: (>7-8) Serious Major revision: (>5-7) Rejected (with repairable deficiencies and may be reconsidered): (>3-5) Strongly rejected (with irreparable deficiencies.): (>0-3)

Source

    © 2021 the Reviewer (CC BY 4.0).