Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: "Appropriateness of colonoscopy according to EPAGE II in a low resource setting: a cross 
sectional study from Sri Lanka " 
 
Version: 0 Date: 28 Jan 2018  
 
Reviewer: Ian Roberts -Thomson  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This paper explores the relationship between outcomes of colonoscopy and adherence to 
guidelines in 5 hospitals in Sri Lanka. The outcome is restricted to colorectal cancer and does not 
include "high -risk" polyps [the latter appear to be less frequent in Asia]. Specific points are as 
follows:  
ABSTRACT. Generally satisfactory but may be a little long and sentence structure could be 
improved in 2 areas.  
METHODS. Probably satisfactory but a statistical review might be helpful.  
RESULTS. A sentence on the effec t of age on outcomes is incomplete and needs to be corrected. 
Part of Table 3 is a little confusing. Under type of colonoscopy, the number of screening 
colonoscopies is listed as 103 - this differs from other information but may be related to 
dichotomised d ata. This needs to be explained.  
DISCUSSION. Generally adequate but probably a little long.Please include all comments for the 
authors in this box rather than uploading your report as an attachment. Please only upload as 
attachments annotated versions of m anuscripts, graphs, supporting materials or other aspects of 
your report which cannot be included in a text format.  
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.  
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 asses s 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 recommend additional s tatistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, consider ing 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 publication 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 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 wi th the authors'  
responses.  I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative 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 ca n 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: "Appropriateness of colonoscopy according to EPAGE II in a low resource setting: a cross 
sectional study from Sri Lanka " 
 
Version: 0 Date: 28 Jan 2018  
 
Reviewer: Ian Roberts -Thomson  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This paper explores the relationship between outcomes of colonoscopy and adherence to 
guidelines in 5 hospitals in Sri Lanka. The outcome is restricted to colorectal cancer and does not 
include "high -risk" polyps [the latter appear to be less frequent in Asia]. Specific points are as 
follows:  
ABSTRACT. Generally satisfactory but may be a little long and sentence structure could be 
improved in 2 areas.  
METHODS. Probably satisfactory but a statistical review might be helpful.  
RESULTS. A sentence on the effec t of age on outcomes is incomplete and needs to be corrected. 
Part of Table 3 is a little confusing. Under type of colonoscopy, the number of screening 
colonoscopies is listed as 103 - this differs from other information but may be related to 
dichotomised d ata. This needs to be explained.  
DISCUSSION. Generally adequate but probably a little long.Please include all comments for the 
authors in this box rather than uploading your report as an attachment. Please only upload as 
attachments annotated versions of m anuscripts, graphs, supporting materials or other aspects of 
your report which cannot be included in a text format.  
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.  
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 asses s 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 recommend additional s tatistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, consider ing 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 publication 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 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 wi th the authors'  
responses.  I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative 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 ca n 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: "Appropriateness of colonoscopy according to EPAGE II in a low resource setting: a cross 
sectional study from Sri Lanka " 
 
Version: 0 Date: 28 Jan 2018  
 
Reviewer: Ian Roberts -Thomson  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This paper explores the relationship between outcomes of colonoscopy and adherence to 
guidelines in 5 hospitals in Sri Lanka. The outcome is restricted to colorectal cancer and does not 
include "high -risk" polyps [the latter appear to be less frequent in Asia]. Specific points are as 
follows:  
ABSTRACT. Generally satisfactory but may be a little long and sentence structure could be 
improved in 2 areas.  
METHODS. Probably satisfactory but a statistical review might be helpful.  
RESULTS. A sentence on the effec t of age on outcomes is incomplete and needs to be corrected. 
Part of Table 3 is a little confusing. Under type of colonoscopy, the number of screening 
colonoscopies is listed as 103 - this differs from other information but may be related to 
dichotomised d ata. This needs to be explained.  
DISCUSSION. Generally adequate but probably a little long.Please include all comments for the 
authors in this box rather than uploading your report as an attachment. Please only upload as 
attachments annotated versions of m anuscripts, graphs, supporting materials or other aspects of 
your report which cannot be included in a text format.  
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.  
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 asses s 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 recommend additional s tatistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, consider ing 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 publication 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 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 wi th the authors'  
responses.  I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative 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 ca n 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