Reviewer's report
Title:Study protocol: population screening for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy
or CT colonography: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 1Date:24 February 2010
Reviewer: Jesse Lachter
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions:
this proposal repeatedly states that colonoscopy and CT colography are the only
modalities which allow for screening of the entire colon.
Of course- the authors know that the double contrast barium enema delivered
results not far from those in some major centers doing CT colography, and the
GIVEN imaging capsule generally proved better than both forms of radiographic
studies.
The rationale for why there are two arms of colonoscopy and just one of CT
colography must be given, especially in light of the authors' assumption that
telephoning will lead to higher participation.
minor grammar errors should be revised.
Much of the discussion on FOBT is extraneous.
The specific information to be given to candidates regarding the known risks
including perforation from CT colography should certainly appear as a mandatory
aspect not mentioned in the proposal, but which should be stated clearly to every
candidate in the CT arm.
The prep for CT colography is very different from that for colonoscopy n this
study, unlike most studies which did their best to have a full bowel prep to get
optimal results from CT colography. The differences in prep could lead to
un-usable results.
The statistics all seem reasonable, except that the uptake of colonoscopy as a
result of a phone call sounds optimistic- this should be piloted, and results of a
pilot study reported.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Study protocol: population screening for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy
or CT colonography: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 1Date:24 February 2010
Reviewer: Jesse Lachter
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions:
this proposal repeatedly states that colonoscopy and CT colography are the only
modalities which allow for screening of the entire colon.
Of course- the authors know that the double contrast barium enema delivered
results not far from those in some major centers doing CT colography, and the
GIVEN imaging capsule generally proved better than both forms of radiographic
studies.
The rationale for why there are two arms of colonoscopy and just one of CT
colography must be given, especially in light of the authors' assumption that
telephoning will lead to higher participation.
minor grammar errors should be revised.
Much of the discussion on FOBT is extraneous.
The specific information to be given to candidates regarding the known risks
including perforation from CT colography should certainly appear as a mandatory
aspect not mentioned in the proposal, but which should be stated clearly to every
candidate in the CT arm.
The prep for CT colography is very different from that for colonoscopy n this
study, unlike most studies which did their best to have a full bowel prep to get
optimal results from CT colography. The differences in prep could lead to
un-usable results.
The statistics all seem reasonable, except that the uptake of colonoscopy as a
result of a phone call sounds optimistic- this should be piloted, and results of a
pilot study reported.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Study protocol: population screening for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy
or CT colonography: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 1Date:24 February 2010
Reviewer: Jesse Lachter
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions:
this proposal repeatedly states that colonoscopy and CT colography are the only
modalities which allow for screening of the entire colon.
Of course- the authors know that the double contrast barium enema delivered
results not far from those in some major centers doing CT colography, and the
GIVEN imaging capsule generally proved better than both forms of radiographic
studies.
The rationale for why there are two arms of colonoscopy and just one of CT
colography must be given, especially in light of the authors' assumption that
telephoning will lead to higher participation.
minor grammar errors should be revised.
Much of the discussion on FOBT is extraneous.
The specific information to be given to candidates regarding the known risks
including perforation from CT colography should certainly appear as a mandatory
aspect not mentioned in the proposal, but which should be stated clearly to every
candidate in the CT arm.
The prep for CT colography is very different from that for colonoscopy n this
study, unlike most studies which did their best to have a full bowel prep to get
optimal results from CT colography. The differences in prep could lead to
un-usable results.
The statistics all seem reasonable, except that the uptake of colonoscopy as a
result of a phone call sounds optimistic- this should be piloted, and results of a
pilot study reported.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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