Sonographic measurement of normal common bile duct diameter and associated factors at the University of Gondar comprehensive specialized hospital and selected private imaging center in Gondar town, North West Ethiopia

Misganaw Gebrie Worku; Engdaw Fentahun Enyew; Zerubabel Tegegne Desita; Abebe Muche Moges

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0227135

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 29, 2019
29 Aug 2019 Author Response Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to editors.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227135.r001
1 Oct 2019 Decision Letter - Roberto Coppola, Editor PONE-D-19-22390 Sonographic Measurement of normal Common Bile Duct Diameter and its correlation with Age, Sex and Anthropometric measurement at University of Gondar comprehensive hospital and selected private imaging center in Gondar town, North West Ethiopia. PLOS ONE Dear Mr Worku, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 15 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Roberto Coppola, MD, FACS Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 1. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical. 2. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Tables 6 & 7 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. 3. Please ensure that you refer to Figures 1-6 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): This is a very interesting paper. The knowledge of the variation of the CBD diameter according to the age of the subject is not new. But the Authors have investigated this simple but crucial data in a very thorough modality. Thy have measured by US the common bile duct of 206 subjects enrolled in a precise statistical modality. The subjects were normal and investigated at the Hospital for other reasons than biliary diseases. The majority of the subjects were young, maybe according to the age population of this district. The sample size estimation was correct. They have also performed a correct US examination with precise landmarks before measure the CBD size. They have tried to minimize any measurement errors. The analysis of the data is very accurate. The results are reported with clear explanation in multiple tables and graphs. In the "discussion" paragraph many previous studies on this issue are reported and the data are compared. Interesting the look at the demographic and anthropologic aspect of the evolution of the CBD in their Region. The conclusions are fully supported by the data. The paper is very easy to read, interesting and I think useful for our readers. I suggest to add at the and of the Discussion a comment on the limitations of this study, considering the age of the subjects, the technical aspect of this type of measure and else. One final question for the Authors: do you have performed chemical analysis (liver functional test) of these subjects to completely rule out any liver alteration? [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227135.r002
Revision 1
19 Oct 2019 Author Response Dear PLOS ONE editors and reviewers, We would like to thank for sharing their views and novel scholarly experiences. The comments are very imperative which we strongly believe in improving the manuscript. The point-by-point responses for each of the comments, questions, and the revised manuscript is provided in the attached documents. Editors and reviewers comments, 1. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical. 2. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Tables 6 & 7 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. 3. Please ensure that you refer to Figures 1-6 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 4. Do you have performed chemical analysis (liver functional test) of these subjects to completely rule out any liver alteration? Author’s response, 1. The comment accepted and the title amended on the online submission and become identical with the title of the main manuscript. The figure files also uploaded to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool as TIFF form. 2. Dear PLOSE ONE editorial the comment question raised by your editorial accepted the table and figures which were not previously referred now referred and included in the full text. 3. The file previously included (declaration part) which is out of PLOSE ONE format also excluded in the revised manuscript. 4. Dear reviewers, in our study chemical analysis were not done rather reviewed from the chart and patient having positive results were primarily excluded since it is usually done as a base line investigation. In addition patients having hepatobiliary abnormality that had an effect on our study are excluded by detail history, physical examination and reviewing the medical history including any chemical analysis done and finally through ultrasonographic investigation by a senior radiologist. So Patients having positive results were primarily excluded from our study participants and patients having no chemical analysis like liver function test as a baseline investigation were appropriately examined. During ultrasound investigation patients having positive findings associated with the hepatobiliary system were also excluded. After all this process and exclusion of patients having problem related to the hepatobiliary system, the common bile duct diameter was measured by a single radiologist. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewer.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227135.r003
13 Dec 2019 Decision Letter - Roberto Coppola, Editor Sonographic Measurement of normal Common Bile Duct Diameter and associated factors at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital and selected private imaging center in Gondar town, North West Ethiopia. PONE-D-19-22390R1 Dear Dr. Worku, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication. Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. With kind regards, Roberto Coppola, MD, FACS Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The Authors have added a paragraph concerning the limitations of the study. The content of this paragraph is sufficient according to previous request. But the entire paragraph must be reviewed for the English language. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227135.r004
Formally Accepted
9 Jan 2020 Acceptance Letter - Roberto Coppola, Editor PONE-D-19-22390R1 Sonographic Measurement of normal Common Bile Duct Diameter and associated factors at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital and selected private imaging center in Gondar town, North West Ethiopia. Dear Dr. Worku: I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE. With kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Professor Roberto Coppola Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227135.r005

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .