Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Improvement of Asia -Pacific Colorectal Screening sc ore and  evaluation of its use 
combined with fecal immunochemical test  
 
Version: 1 Date: 02 Dec 2019  
 
Reviewer: Jennifer Hardingham  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is a well written paper and the main strength is the relatively large numbers of patients in 
the data sets, and a sample s ize calculation was performed. However it needs revisions as 
follows:  
 
Table 2 referent should be reference.  
 
Pge 7 line 31: It is rather than It's.  
 
Pge 10 line 56 space needed 'non advanced'  
 
The main area of contention is the varied names of the groups e.g . advanced neoplasia in Table 1 
referred to as advanced adenoma in the ext. The naming of the categories should be consistent 
throughout. In Fig 1 the term non advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) - is not mentioned 
anywhere else? Please address this.  
 
The c ategories of colorectal neoplasia (20.6%), advanced adenoma (3.6%), colorectal cancer 
(0.5%) - what comprises the remainder of the colorectal neoplasia cases?  
 
In Table 4 in derivation set you use the term "ACN" but in validation set "neoplasia". Please be 
consistent with terms.  
 
Pge 13 lines 20 -25 "these factors still reached significance" is not true as 3 of them did not reach 
significance - please correct.  
 
Pge 14 delete (NNS) as you do not actually use the abbreviation.  
 
The C -statistic for validation set o f 0.69 is borderline useful. In discussion could suggest what 
else to include in score such as side of tumour.  
 
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.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comm ents to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your com ments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering t he following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2.  Do you h old any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 competing 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.  
 
I declare I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or 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 in cluded 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: Improvement of Asia -Pacific Colorectal Screening sc ore and  evaluation of its use 
combined with fecal immunochemical test  
 
Version: 1 Date: 02 Dec 2019  
 
Reviewer: Jennifer Hardingham  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is a well written paper and the main strength is the relatively large numbers of patients in 
the data sets, and a sample s ize calculation was performed. However it needs revisions as 
follows:  
 
Table 2 referent should be reference.  
 
Pge 7 line 31: It is rather than It's.  
 
Pge 10 line 56 space needed 'non advanced'  
 
The main area of contention is the varied names of the groups e.g . advanced neoplasia in Table 1 
referred to as advanced adenoma in the ext. The naming of the categories should be consistent 
throughout. In Fig 1 the term non advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) - is not mentioned 
anywhere else? Please address this.  
 
The c ategories of colorectal neoplasia (20.6%), advanced adenoma (3.6%), colorectal cancer 
(0.5%) - what comprises the remainder of the colorectal neoplasia cases?  
 
In Table 4 in derivation set you use the term "ACN" but in validation set "neoplasia". Please be 
consistent with terms.  
 
Pge 13 lines 20 -25 "these factors still reached significance" is not true as 3 of them did not reach 
significance - please correct.  
 
Pge 14 delete (NNS) as you do not actually use the abbreviation.  
 
The C -statistic for validation set o f 0.69 is borderline useful. In discussion could suggest what 
else to include in score such as side of tumour.  
 
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.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comm ents to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your com ments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering t he following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2.  Do you h old any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 competing 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.  
 
I declare I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or 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 in cluded 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: Improvement of Asia -Pacific Colorectal Screening sc ore and  evaluation of its use 
combined with fecal immunochemical test  
 
Version: 1 Date: 02 Dec 2019  
 
Reviewer: Jennifer Hardingham  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is a well written paper and the main strength is the relatively large numbers of patients in 
the data sets, and a sample s ize calculation was performed. However it needs revisions as 
follows:  
 
Table 2 referent should be reference.  
 
Pge 7 line 31: It is rather than It's.  
 
Pge 10 line 56 space needed 'non advanced'  
 
The main area of contention is the varied names of the groups e.g . advanced neoplasia in Table 1 
referred to as advanced adenoma in the ext. The naming of the categories should be consistent 
throughout. In Fig 1 the term non advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) - is not mentioned 
anywhere else? Please address this.  
 
The c ategories of colorectal neoplasia (20.6%), advanced adenoma (3.6%), colorectal cancer 
(0.5%) - what comprises the remainder of the colorectal neoplasia cases?  
 
In Table 4 in derivation set you use the term "ACN" but in validation set "neoplasia". Please be 
consistent with terms.  
 
Pge 13 lines 20 -25 "these factors still reached significance" is not true as 3 of them did not reach 
significance - please correct.  
 
Pge 14 delete (NNS) as you do not actually use the abbreviation.  
 
The C -statistic for validation set o f 0.69 is borderline useful. In discussion could suggest what 
else to include in score such as side of tumour.  
 
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.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comm ents to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your com ments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering t he following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2.  Do you h old any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 competing 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.  
 
I declare I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or 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 in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant