Reviewer's report
Title:Colon Capsule Endoscopy compared to Conventional Colonoscopy under
routine screening conditions
Version: 3Date:9 June 2010
Reviewer: Hans Herfarth
Reviewer's report:
The authors report about the sensitivity of colon capsule endoscopy compared to
colonoscopy. The study has some weaknesses: small sample size, no second
look in patients with positive capsule findings and negative colonoscopy.
However overall the now revised manuscript adds to the growing body that colon
capsule endoscopy is not ready for prime time for screening purposes. The
authors point this out in their conclusion.
I have only minor changes. Instead of Figure 1 (colon capsule), I would include
the two tables of the supplementary material in the manuscript: table 1
summarizing the bowel and table 2 the definitions of the quality of the bowel
prep.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Colon Capsule Endoscopy compared to Conventional Colonoscopy under
routine screening conditions
Version: 3Date:9 June 2010
Reviewer: Hans Herfarth
Reviewer's report:
The authors report about the sensitivity of colon capsule endoscopy compared to
colonoscopy. The study has some weaknesses: small sample size, no second
look in patients with positive capsule findings and negative colonoscopy.
However overall the now revised manuscript adds to the growing body that colon
capsule endoscopy is not ready for prime time for screening purposes. The
authors point this out in their conclusion.
I have only minor changes. Instead of Figure 1 (colon capsule), I would include
the two tables of the supplementary material in the manuscript: table 1
summarizing the bowel and table 2 the definitions of the quality of the bowel
prep.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Colon Capsule Endoscopy compared to Conventional Colonoscopy under
routine screening conditions
Version: 3Date:9 June 2010
Reviewer: Hans Herfarth
Reviewer's report:
The authors report about the sensitivity of colon capsule endoscopy compared to
colonoscopy. The study has some weaknesses: small sample size, no second
look in patients with positive capsule findings and negative colonoscopy.
However overall the now revised manuscript adds to the growing body that colon
capsule endoscopy is not ready for prime time for screening purposes. The
authors point this out in their conclusion.
I have only minor changes. Instead of Figure 1 (colon capsule), I would include
the two tables of the supplementary material in the manuscript: table 1
summarizing the bowel and table 2 the definitions of the quality of the bowel
prep.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant