Reviewer's report
Title:A shift from distal to proximal neoplasia in the colon: a decade of polyps
and CRC in Italy.
Version: 3Date:28 March 2010
Reviewer: Yutaka Atomi
Reviewer's report:
These authors should reply to this reviewer’s comments more precisely.
1)(minor) Was there any necessity to show the annual data separately in Tables
and Figures?
The main point of this comment was “Why did the authors describe the data year
by year?” It’s too detailed, and didn’t make sense.
2)(major) When an ordinary adenoma or an early cancer in the right colon and an
advanced adenoma or cancer in the left colon were located synchronously, the
former lesion was neglected and the latter lesion only was analyzed according to
the study protocol. This study design may obscure actual change of distribution
patterns, and may lead to wrong conclusions.
According to the study protocol, this case was classified as having a left-sided
lesion, although he/she had a right-sided lesion simultaneously. This was this
reviewer’s concern.
This reviewer will be pleased to review the revised manuscript again if the
authors respond correctly.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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:A shift from distal to proximal neoplasia in the colon: a decade of polyps
and CRC in Italy.
Version: 3Date:28 March 2010
Reviewer: Yutaka Atomi
Reviewer's report:
These authors should reply to this reviewer’s comments more precisely.
1)(minor) Was there any necessity to show the annual data separately in Tables
and Figures?
The main point of this comment was “Why did the authors describe the data year
by year?” It’s too detailed, and didn’t make sense.
2)(major) When an ordinary adenoma or an early cancer in the right colon and an
advanced adenoma or cancer in the left colon were located synchronously, the
former lesion was neglected and the latter lesion only was analyzed according to
the study protocol. This study design may obscure actual change of distribution
patterns, and may lead to wrong conclusions.
According to the study protocol, this case was classified as having a left-sided
lesion, although he/she had a right-sided lesion simultaneously. This was this
reviewer’s concern.
This reviewer will be pleased to review the revised manuscript again if the
authors respond correctly.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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:A shift from distal to proximal neoplasia in the colon: a decade of polyps
and CRC in Italy.
Version: 3Date:28 March 2010
Reviewer: Yutaka Atomi
Reviewer's report:
These authors should reply to this reviewer’s comments more precisely.
1)(minor) Was there any necessity to show the annual data separately in Tables
and Figures?
The main point of this comment was “Why did the authors describe the data year
by year?” It’s too detailed, and didn’t make sense.
2)(major) When an ordinary adenoma or an early cancer in the right colon and an
advanced adenoma or cancer in the left colon were located synchronously, the
former lesion was neglected and the latter lesion only was analyzed according to
the study protocol. This study design may obscure actual change of distribution
patterns, and may lead to wrong conclusions.
According to the study protocol, this case was classified as having a left-sided
lesion, although he/she had a right-sided lesion simultaneously. This was this
reviewer’s concern.
This reviewer will be pleased to review the revised manuscript again if the
authors respond correctly.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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