All the authors possess masters degree in medicine and the last two authors possess even PhD degree. They are gastroenterologists with keen interest in study and research pertaining to stones in bile ducts. The first and second authors have published several articles pertaining to this topic. Thus the authors have professional experience and qualifications in this regard. An abstract is included in the study and is described heading wise. The abstract gives clear information in a concise manner about various aspects of the study. The abstract does identify the research problem, i.e., "factors affecting diagnostic accuracy and comparison of patients in the follow-up period for negative outcomes are not thoroughly investigated in a randomized trial." There is no hypothesis in the research. The methodology, sample subjects and major findings in the study are mentioned in the abstract. The rationale for the study is clearly mentioned. The limitations of the study are not mentioned.
The literature review in the study is not in detail and very short. However, it is up-to-date. No underlying theoretical frameworks have been identified in the study. The literature review however, does identify the need for the research proposal. There is no hypothesis in the study. The methodology is clear. The study is a prospective unicentric randomized study conducted over one year after appropriate approval from the Ethics committee. 256 patients with suspected biliary stone disease who were hospitalized were included in the study. The aims and objectives in the study are clear and well defined. Even secondary objectives are indicated. All the terms in the research are clearly defined. A standardized criteria defined by Barkun et al 17 was used to determine common bile duct stones. The methodology is clear, reproducible and appropriate to the research problem. The inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria for this study are definite and described