Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Risk prediction models for colorectal cancer in people with symptoms: a systematic 
review  
 
 
Version: 0 Date: 10 Jan 2016  
 
 
Reviewer: Andrzej  Wincewicz  
 
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors aimed at meticulous and concise appreciation of ri sk predilection models for 
colorectal neoplasia according to the current state of art. The selection covered publications in 
the period of 14 days ( up to march 2014). However, authors' appraisal turms out to be 
assessment of quality of considered publicat ions. In results sections there are some lacks of 
characteristic data. Namely, one finding that no studies have assessed model impact on clinical 
outcomes is appealing and should prompt urgent response of constructors (distinguished authors 
of such models)  of risk prediction models for colorectal neoplasia. If the review usually serves to 
present essentials of the most important risk prediction models, here we get hardly anything 
more from the abstract and results section than appreciation of technical qual ity of cited 
publication. In the results section the authors also mainly focus on evaluation of technical details 
of cited studies with special attention of validation of cited papers but the review does not 
provide complete and fine characteristics of ris k models. In the results section only few 
morphological and clinical factors of risk prediction models are mentioned e.g. "adenoma with 
significant (> 25%) villous features, or high grade dysplasia, including carcinoma -in-situ, or size 
10 mm or larger, a p olyp measuring 10 mm or bigger" and so on. I think that presentation of 
essence of wisely and carefully chosen risk models would be further welcomed. Thus, I am 
deeply convinced that the readers would be more interested in this important review if short 
concise characteristics would be added for risk models, which are the most esteemed by authors 
e.g. "Thirteen variables, including eight symptoms, were included in three or more models" -This 
sentence is quite laconic even, if list of these variables would a ppear in tables provided. If the 
reader decided to enjoy your review, he or she would definitely want to have these 13 variables 
mentioned by name right in the above sentence. Please also mention these 8 symptoms by name 
as well. You provide a fine categor ization of variables but You do not mention them by names. I 
am afraid that following sentence should be rewritten: "From work in other disease areas we 
know that lack of time, poor knowledge or understanding of the tools, the perception that clinical 
judgment is as good as or better than risk tools, uncertainty about how to account for risk factors 
perceived to be important but not included in the tools, and poor computer software all contribute 
to low uptake of risk models."  
 
 If I decided to write such an  review, I would rather avoid being an authoritative judge of cited 
publication, as I am not a constructor of any competitive risk model for colorectal neoplasia. My 
remark to authors is just to change a bit this eventual attitude which some readers and au thors of 
cited publications would be confused of.  
 
In my opinion the paper requires minor revision,  
 
With deep regards, best wishes and cordial greetings,  
Andrzej Wincewicz  
 
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.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
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 assess 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 statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the ma nuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering 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 com peting 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.  
 
No competing inte rests 
 
I agree t o 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 with 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 can 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: Risk prediction models for colorectal cancer in people with symptoms: a systematic 
review  
 
 
Version: 0 Date: 10 Jan 2016  
 
 
Reviewer: Andrzej  Wincewicz  
 
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors aimed at meticulous and concise appreciation of ri sk predilection models for 
colorectal neoplasia according to the current state of art. The selection covered publications in 
the period of 14 days ( up to march 2014). However, authors' appraisal turms out to be 
assessment of quality of considered publicat ions. In results sections there are some lacks of 
characteristic data. Namely, one finding that no studies have assessed model impact on clinical 
outcomes is appealing and should prompt urgent response of constructors (distinguished authors 
of such models)  of risk prediction models for colorectal neoplasia. If the review usually serves to 
present essentials of the most important risk prediction models, here we get hardly anything 
more from the abstract and results section than appreciation of technical qual ity of cited 
publication. In the results section the authors also mainly focus on evaluation of technical details 
of cited studies with special attention of validation of cited papers but the review does not 
provide complete and fine characteristics of ris k models. In the results section only few 
morphological and clinical factors of risk prediction models are mentioned e.g. "adenoma with 
significant (> 25%) villous features, or high grade dysplasia, including carcinoma -in-situ, or size 
10 mm or larger, a p olyp measuring 10 mm or bigger" and so on. I think that presentation of 
essence of wisely and carefully chosen risk models would be further welcomed. Thus, I am 
deeply convinced that the readers would be more interested in this important review if short 
concise characteristics would be added for risk models, which are the most esteemed by authors 
e.g. "Thirteen variables, including eight symptoms, were included in three or more models" -This 
sentence is quite laconic even, if list of these variables would a ppear in tables provided. If the 
reader decided to enjoy your review, he or she would definitely want to have these 13 variables 
mentioned by name right in the above sentence. Please also mention these 8 symptoms by name 
as well. You provide a fine categor ization of variables but You do not mention them by names. I 
am afraid that following sentence should be rewritten: "From work in other disease areas we 
know that lack of time, poor knowledge or understanding of the tools, the perception that clinical 
judgment is as good as or better than risk tools, uncertainty about how to account for risk factors 
perceived to be important but not included in the tools, and poor computer software all contribute 
to low uptake of risk models."  
 
 If I decided to write such an  review, I would rather avoid being an authoritative judge of cited 
publication, as I am not a constructor of any competitive risk model for colorectal neoplasia. My 
remark to authors is just to change a bit this eventual attitude which some readers and au thors of 
cited publications would be confused of.  
 
In my opinion the paper requires minor revision,  
 
With deep regards, best wishes and cordial greetings,  
Andrzej Wincewicz  
 
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.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
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 assess 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 statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the ma nuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering 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 com peting 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.  
 
No competing inte rests 
 
I agree t o 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 with 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 can 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: Risk prediction models for colorectal cancer in people with symptoms: a systematic 
review  
 
 
Version: 0 Date: 10 Jan 2016  
 
 
Reviewer: Andrzej  Wincewicz  
 
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors aimed at meticulous and concise appreciation of ri sk predilection models for 
colorectal neoplasia according to the current state of art. The selection covered publications in 
the period of 14 days ( up to march 2014). However, authors' appraisal turms out to be 
assessment of quality of considered publicat ions. In results sections there are some lacks of 
characteristic data. Namely, one finding that no studies have assessed model impact on clinical 
outcomes is appealing and should prompt urgent response of constructors (distinguished authors 
of such models)  of risk prediction models for colorectal neoplasia. If the review usually serves to 
present essentials of the most important risk prediction models, here we get hardly anything 
more from the abstract and results section than appreciation of technical qual ity of cited 
publication. In the results section the authors also mainly focus on evaluation of technical details 
of cited studies with special attention of validation of cited papers but the review does not 
provide complete and fine characteristics of ris k models. In the results section only few 
morphological and clinical factors of risk prediction models are mentioned e.g. "adenoma with 
significant (> 25%) villous features, or high grade dysplasia, including carcinoma -in-situ, or size 
10 mm or larger, a p olyp measuring 10 mm or bigger" and so on. I think that presentation of 
essence of wisely and carefully chosen risk models would be further welcomed. Thus, I am 
deeply convinced that the readers would be more interested in this important review if short 
concise characteristics would be added for risk models, which are the most esteemed by authors 
e.g. "Thirteen variables, including eight symptoms, were included in three or more models" -This 
sentence is quite laconic even, if list of these variables would a ppear in tables provided. If the 
reader decided to enjoy your review, he or she would definitely want to have these 13 variables 
mentioned by name right in the above sentence. Please also mention these 8 symptoms by name 
as well. You provide a fine categor ization of variables but You do not mention them by names. I 
am afraid that following sentence should be rewritten: "From work in other disease areas we 
know that lack of time, poor knowledge or understanding of the tools, the perception that clinical 
judgment is as good as or better than risk tools, uncertainty about how to account for risk factors 
perceived to be important but not included in the tools, and poor computer software all contribute 
to low uptake of risk models."  
 
 If I decided to write such an  review, I would rather avoid being an authoritative judge of cited 
publication, as I am not a constructor of any competitive risk model for colorectal neoplasia. My 
remark to authors is just to change a bit this eventual attitude which some readers and au thors of 
cited publications would be confused of.  
 
In my opinion the paper requires minor revision,  
 
With deep regards, best wishes and cordial greetings,  
Andrzej Wincewicz  
 
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.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
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 assess 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 statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the ma nuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering 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 com peting 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.  
 
No competing inte rests 
 
I agree t o 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 with 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 can 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