Title: Predictors of the experience of a Cytosponge test: analysis of patient survey data from
the BEST3 trial
Version: 5 Date: 15 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for submitting this new version.
All my earlier comments have been satisfactorily addressed. I think the paper is now stronger,
and have a clearer focus on the two main predictors of negative experience identified (anxiety
and difficulty swallowing).
Note that in my opinion the authors may have gone too much the other way in their multivariable
model, and discarded too many variables. This is not mentioned explicitly but believe they only
kept variables with p-value<0.05 in the final model. It could have been more lenient, e.g. p-
value<0.10 or 0.20, as variables do not need to be statistically significant to be relevant. (And a
stepwise selection may also be slightly safer than backward). This would have been my preferred
approach, but the current approach is not wrong, and would not require a revision to address
this, except if the editors feel otherwise.
Overall I am satisfied with the revision. The statistical analysis and interpretation of the findings
are in my opinion appropriate.
I would like to thank again the authors for their clearly written manuscript.
Title: Predictors of the experience of a Cytosponge test: analysis of patient survey data from
the BEST3 trial
Version: 5 Date: 15 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for submitting this new version.
All my earlier comments have been satisfactorily addressed. I think the paper is now stronger,
and have a clearer focus on the two main predictors of negative experience identified (anxiety
and difficulty swallowing).
Note that in my opinion the authors may have gone too much the other way in their multivariable
model, and discarded too many variables. This is not mentioned explicitly but believe they only
kept variables with p-value<0.05 in the final model. It could have been more lenient, e.g. p-
value<0.10 or 0.20, as variables do not need to be statistically significant to be relevant. (And a
stepwise selection may also be slightly safer than backward). This would have been my preferred
approach, but the current approach is not wrong, and would not require a revision to address
this, except if the editors feel otherwise.
Overall I am satisfied with the revision. The statistical analysis and interpretation of the findings
are in my opinion appropriate.
I would like to thank again the authors for their clearly written manuscript.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Predictors of the experience of a Cytosponge test: analysis of patient survey data from
the BEST3 trial
Version: 5 Date: 15 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for submitting this new version.
All my earlier comments have been satisfactorily addressed. I think the paper is now stronger,
and have a clearer focus on the two main predictors of negative experience identified (anxiety
and difficulty swallowing).
Note that in my opinion the authors may have gone too much the other way in their multivariable
model, and discarded too many variables. This is not mentioned explicitly but believe they only
kept variables with p-value<0.05 in the final model. It could have been more lenient, e.g. p-
value<0.10 or 0.20, as variables do not need to be statistically significant to be relevant. (And a
stepwise selection may also be slightly safer than backward). This would have been my preferred
approach, but the current approach is not wrong, and would not require a revision to address
this, except if the editors feel otherwise.
Overall I am satisfied with the revision. The statistical analysis and interpretation of the findings
are in my opinion appropriate.
I would like to thank again the authors for their clearly written manuscript.
assistant