Title: Association of gallbladder diseases with risk of gastrointestinal polyps
Version: 5 Date: 29 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have responded to all of the reviewer's comments. There
remain a few issues to address.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
1. “We define gallbladder disease as gallstones and gallbladder polyps.” – in this sentence the
‘and’ should be ‘or’
2. “The colorectal polyps were located in the right colon (proximal to splenic flexure) and left
colon (splenic flexure and distal to splenic flexure).” – this should be “The colorectal polyps
were recorded as being in the right colon (proximal to splenic flexure) or left colon (splenic
flexure and distal to splenic flexure).
3. The addition of the following text helps but needs additional information as follows:
“Multivariable analysis was adjusted for those significant in the univariate analysis.”. Change
‘adjusted’ for ‘performed’. Also state how did you define significant.
4. “No correlation was found between gallbladder polyps and right-colon polyps (adjusted OR
= 1.77, 95% CI: 0.97–3.23, P = .064).” – I think it’s too strong to say there was no association.
I would say this is a borderline (or suggestive) positive association.
5. It’s unclear what a non adenoma is in the following sentence? “No correlation was found
between gallbladder polyps and colorectal non-adenoma”
6. Table 5: add ‘years’ where it says age in the table"
Title: Association of gallbladder diseases with risk of gastrointestinal polyps
Version: 5 Date: 29 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have responded to all of the reviewer's comments. There
remain a few issues to address.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
1. “We define gallbladder disease as gallstones and gallbladder polyps.” – in this sentence the
‘and’ should be ‘or’
2. “The colorectal polyps were located in the right colon (proximal to splenic flexure) and left
colon (splenic flexure and distal to splenic flexure).” – this should be “The colorectal polyps
were recorded as being in the right colon (proximal to splenic flexure) or left colon (splenic
flexure and distal to splenic flexure).
3. The addition of the following text helps but needs additional information as follows:
“Multivariable analysis was adjusted for those significant in the univariate analysis.”. Change
‘adjusted’ for ‘performed’. Also state how did you define significant.
4. “No correlation was found between gallbladder polyps and right-colon polyps (adjusted OR
= 1.77, 95% CI: 0.97–3.23, P = .064).” – I think it’s too strong to say there was no association.
I would say this is a borderline (or suggestive) positive association.
5. It’s unclear what a non adenoma is in the following sentence? “No correlation was found
between gallbladder polyps and colorectal non-adenoma”
6. Table 5: add ‘years’ where it says age in the table"
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Association of gallbladder diseases with risk of gastrointestinal polyps
Version: 5 Date: 29 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have responded to all of the reviewer's comments. There
remain a few issues to address.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
1. “We define gallbladder disease as gallstones and gallbladder polyps.” – in this sentence the
‘and’ should be ‘or’
2. “The colorectal polyps were located in the right colon (proximal to splenic flexure) and left
colon (splenic flexure and distal to splenic flexure).” – this should be “The colorectal polyps
were recorded as being in the right colon (proximal to splenic flexure) or left colon (splenic
flexure and distal to splenic flexure).
3. The addition of the following text helps but needs additional information as follows:
“Multivariable analysis was adjusted for those significant in the univariate analysis.”. Change
‘adjusted’ for ‘performed’. Also state how did you define significant.
4. “No correlation was found between gallbladder polyps and right-colon polyps (adjusted OR
= 1.77, 95% CI: 0.97–3.23, P = .064).” – I think it’s too strong to say there was no association.
I would say this is a borderline (or suggestive) positive association.
5. It’s unclear what a non adenoma is in the following sentence? “No correlation was found
between gallbladder polyps and colorectal non-adenoma”
6. Table 5: add ‘years’ where it says age in the table"
assistant