Reviewer's report
Title:Use of an Electromagnetic Colonoscope to Assess Maneuvers Associated
with Cecal Intubation
Version: 1Date:13 October 2008
Reviewer: Arthur Kaffes
Reviewer's report:
Review of manuscript: Use of an Electromagnetic Colonoscope to Assess
Maneuvers Associated with Cecal Intubation
Overall a nice paper and quite interesting work. Some minor discretionary
revisions are suggested as follows;
Abstract
Last paragraph of the methods section does not make sense.
Fifth sentence in the results does not make sense
Background
There is too much about the Olympus device in this section I would prefer to see
it in the methods section
Results
Colonoscopy information section: you comment about the 5 cases with the paed
VS but not on the rest. In fact, there is more info in the abstract on this.
ETM: third paragraph makes little sense and requires referral to the table. This
should be better explained in the text. There is no real comment about how you
measure success of ETM in the methods.
Conclusion is far too long.
Reference section needs to be tidied up.
Figure 2 adds nothing to the paper.
Suggest accept after discretionary revisions
An article of importance in its field
Minimal statistical input required for this work
No disclosures to be made.
Reviewer's report
Title:Use of an Electromagnetic Colonoscope to Assess Maneuvers Associated
with Cecal Intubation
Version: 1Date:13 October 2008
Reviewer: Arthur Kaffes
Reviewer's report:
Review of manuscript: Use of an Electromagnetic Colonoscope to Assess
Maneuvers Associated with Cecal Intubation
Overall a nice paper and quite interesting work. Some minor discretionary
revisions are suggested as follows;
Abstract
Last paragraph of the methods section does not make sense.
Fifth sentence in the results does not make sense
Background
There is too much about the Olympus device in this section I would prefer to see
it in the methods section
Results
Colonoscopy information section: you comment about the 5 cases with the paed
VS but not on the rest. In fact, there is more info in the abstract on this.
ETM: third paragraph makes little sense and requires referral to the table. This
should be better explained in the text. There is no real comment about how you
measure success of ETM in the methods.
Conclusion is far too long.
Reference section needs to be tidied up.
Figure 2 adds nothing to the paper.
Suggest accept after discretionary revisions
An article of importance in its field
Minimal statistical input required for this work
No disclosures to be made.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Use of an Electromagnetic Colonoscope to Assess Maneuvers Associated
with Cecal Intubation
Version: 1Date:13 October 2008
Reviewer: Arthur Kaffes
Reviewer's report:
Review of manuscript: Use of an Electromagnetic Colonoscope to Assess
Maneuvers Associated with Cecal Intubation
Overall a nice paper and quite interesting work. Some minor discretionary
revisions are suggested as follows;
Abstract
Last paragraph of the methods section does not make sense.
Fifth sentence in the results does not make sense
Background
There is too much about the Olympus device in this section I would prefer to see
it in the methods section
Results
Colonoscopy information section: you comment about the 5 cases with the paed
VS but not on the rest. In fact, there is more info in the abstract on this.
ETM: third paragraph makes little sense and requires referral to the table. This
should be better explained in the text. There is no real comment about how you
measure success of ETM in the methods.
Conclusion is far too long.
Reference section needs to be tidied up.
Figure 2 adds nothing to the paper.
Suggest accept after discretionary revisions
An article of importance in its field
Minimal statistical input required for this work
No disclosures to be made.
assistant