Reviewer's report
Title:Cost-Effectiveness of a Mailed Educational Reminder to Increase
Colorectal Cancer Screening
Version: 1Date:16 November 2010
Reviewer: Sujha Subramanian
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1) Sensitivity analysis was based on a 10% variation in point estimates. Better
explanation is needed as to why this approach was selected.
2) Intervention costs in the results sections -- it is not clear exactly what costs are
reported here. It is confusing to have time spent on various activities reported in
this section. There is no mention of how time spent on activities were calculated
in the methods section. Was a time-and-motion analysis used? Better
explanation is required in the methods section to better inform the reader.
3) No details are provided on the timing as to when the FOBT kits were returned
in the intervention and control groups. The reminder mainling was sent out 10
days after the kit and yet the return rate of FOBTs was calculated over a 6-month
period. It would be good to know the when the FOBTs kits were returned (to
understand the pattern of returns) in the intervention and control groups
Minor Essential Revisions
1) The 40% compliance rate with CRC screening recommendations referenced in
the introduction is outdated. Need to update this reference with new data.
2) "In addition, the improvement in screening rats (should be rates)
was about one half of what we observed in our study, and as a result, the ICER
was much higher than what we report."
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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:Cost-Effectiveness of a Mailed Educational Reminder to Increase
Colorectal Cancer Screening
Version: 1Date:16 November 2010
Reviewer: Sujha Subramanian
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1) Sensitivity analysis was based on a 10% variation in point estimates. Better
explanation is needed as to why this approach was selected.
2) Intervention costs in the results sections -- it is not clear exactly what costs are
reported here. It is confusing to have time spent on various activities reported in
this section. There is no mention of how time spent on activities were calculated
in the methods section. Was a time-and-motion analysis used? Better
explanation is required in the methods section to better inform the reader.
3) No details are provided on the timing as to when the FOBT kits were returned
in the intervention and control groups. The reminder mainling was sent out 10
days after the kit and yet the return rate of FOBTs was calculated over a 6-month
period. It would be good to know the when the FOBTs kits were returned (to
understand the pattern of returns) in the intervention and control groups
Minor Essential Revisions
1) The 40% compliance rate with CRC screening recommendations referenced in
the introduction is outdated. Need to update this reference with new data.
2) "In addition, the improvement in screening rats (should be rates)
was about one half of what we observed in our study, and as a result, the ICER
was much higher than what we report."
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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:Cost-Effectiveness of a Mailed Educational Reminder to Increase
Colorectal Cancer Screening
Version: 1Date:16 November 2010
Reviewer: Sujha Subramanian
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1) Sensitivity analysis was based on a 10% variation in point estimates. Better
explanation is needed as to why this approach was selected.
2) Intervention costs in the results sections -- it is not clear exactly what costs are
reported here. It is confusing to have time spent on various activities reported in
this section. There is no mention of how time spent on activities were calculated
in the methods section. Was a time-and-motion analysis used? Better
explanation is required in the methods section to better inform the reader.
3) No details are provided on the timing as to when the FOBT kits were returned
in the intervention and control groups. The reminder mainling was sent out 10
days after the kit and yet the return rate of FOBTs was calculated over a 6-month
period. It would be good to know the when the FOBTs kits were returned (to
understand the pattern of returns) in the intervention and control groups
Minor Essential Revisions
1) The 40% compliance rate with CRC screening recommendations referenced in
the introduction is outdated. Need to update this reference with new data.
2) "In addition, the improvement in screening rats (should be rates)
was about one half of what we observed in our study, and as a result, the ICER
was much higher than what we report."
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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