Reviewer's report 
 Endoscopists attitudes on the publication of quality data for endoscopic procedures: a cross-sectionalTitle: 
survey 
 2  18 June 2007 Version: Date: 
 Emiel Verdaasdonk Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
The authors have made all suggested changes. However, one thing confuses me. The box-plots in Figure 1 
and 2 seem not to correspond with the scores displayed in Table 2. The authors state in the x axes that the 
box plots show the mean, standard deviation, minimal and maximal as in Table 2. According to my knowledge box-plots present median, 25th percentile, minimal and maximal value. Furthermore, there are outliers and extremes when scores are higher or lower than 1.5 times the interquartile. In Figure 1 the 
box-plots even exceeds 5. How is this possible, because the maximal Likert score is 5? The authors have to 
clarify this. Has there been made an error? Is the data from Table 2 incorrect or that of the box-plots? Either 
show medians or means. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
The authors have made all suggested changes 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Some changes have been made. 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
Reviewer's report 
 Endoscopists attitudes on the publication of quality data for endoscopic procedures: a cross-sectionalTitle: 
survey 
 2  18 June 2007 Version: Date: 
 Emiel Verdaasdonk Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
The authors have made all suggested changes. However, one thing confuses me. The box-plots in Figure 1 
and 2 seem not to correspond with the scores displayed in Table 2. The authors state in the x axes that the 
box plots show the mean, standard deviation, minimal and maximal as in Table 2. According to my knowledge box-plots present median, 25th percentile, minimal and maximal value. Furthermore, there are outliers and extremes when scores are higher or lower than 1.5 times the interquartile. In Figure 1 the 
box-plots even exceeds 5. How is this possible, because the maximal Likert score is 5? The authors have to 
clarify this. Has there been made an error? Is the data from Table 2 incorrect or that of the box-plots? Either 
show medians or means. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
The authors have made all suggested changes 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Some changes have been made. 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Endoscopists attitudes on the publication of quality data for endoscopic procedures: a cross-sectionalTitle: 
survey 
 2  18 June 2007 Version: Date: 
 Emiel Verdaasdonk Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
The authors have made all suggested changes. However, one thing confuses me. The box-plots in Figure 1 
and 2 seem not to correspond with the scores displayed in Table 2. The authors state in the x axes that the 
box plots show the mean, standard deviation, minimal and maximal as in Table 2. According to my knowledge box-plots present median, 25th percentile, minimal and maximal value. Furthermore, there are outliers and extremes when scores are higher or lower than 1.5 times the interquartile. In Figure 1 the 
box-plots even exceeds 5. How is this possible, because the maximal Likert score is 5? The authors have to 
clarify this. Has there been made an error? Is the data from Table 2 incorrect or that of the box-plots? Either 
show medians or means. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
The authors have made all suggested changes 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Some changes have been made. 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
assistant