Reviewer's report
Title:Gastronet survey on the use of one- or two-person technique for
colonoscopy insertion
Version: 1Date:20 March 2011
Reviewer: Giancarlo Spinzi
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting and useful article because performance of one and
two-persons insertion techniques have not reported before. All that is unknown
must be resolved. I have some major questions:
- We do not know the withdrawal time from the cecum and this may be the cause
of the different polyp detection rate between the two groups.
- Polyps detection rate was better with one-person technique, but you explain
that all endoscopists practice one-person withdrawal technique. How can the
authors explain this difference?
- Survey may not be a real representation because patients of non respondents
reported more often moderate or severe pain and examinations performed by
non-respondents were more often with sedation (41% vs 27%). This may
represent a selection bias.
- The Authors stated that some endoscopists in the two-person group converted
occasionally to one-person technique and vice-versa during phases of insertion
problems. However, we do not konw for how long this was done so this could
modify the results.
One minor question:
- Patients' questionnaires were filled in at home on the day after examinations.
Why pain was not evaluated after colonscopy and before leaving the endoscopy
ward?
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:Gastronet survey on the use of one- or two-person technique for
colonoscopy insertion
Version: 1Date:20 March 2011
Reviewer: Giancarlo Spinzi
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting and useful article because performance of one and
two-persons insertion techniques have not reported before. All that is unknown
must be resolved. I have some major questions:
- We do not know the withdrawal time from the cecum and this may be the cause
of the different polyp detection rate between the two groups.
- Polyps detection rate was better with one-person technique, but you explain
that all endoscopists practice one-person withdrawal technique. How can the
authors explain this difference?
- Survey may not be a real representation because patients of non respondents
reported more often moderate or severe pain and examinations performed by
non-respondents were more often with sedation (41% vs 27%). This may
represent a selection bias.
- The Authors stated that some endoscopists in the two-person group converted
occasionally to one-person technique and vice-versa during phases of insertion
problems. However, we do not konw for how long this was done so this could
modify the results.
One minor question:
- Patients' questionnaires were filled in at home on the day after examinations.
Why pain was not evaluated after colonscopy and before leaving the endoscopy
ward?
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:Gastronet survey on the use of one- or two-person technique for
colonoscopy insertion
Version: 1Date:20 March 2011
Reviewer: Giancarlo Spinzi
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting and useful article because performance of one and
two-persons insertion techniques have not reported before. All that is unknown
must be resolved. I have some major questions:
- We do not know the withdrawal time from the cecum and this may be the cause
of the different polyp detection rate between the two groups.
- Polyps detection rate was better with one-person technique, but you explain
that all endoscopists practice one-person withdrawal technique. How can the
authors explain this difference?
- Survey may not be a real representation because patients of non respondents
reported more often moderate or severe pain and examinations performed by
non-respondents were more often with sedation (41% vs 27%). This may
represent a selection bias.
- The Authors stated that some endoscopists in the two-person group converted
occasionally to one-person technique and vice-versa during phases of insertion
problems. However, we do not konw for how long this was done so this could
modify the results.
One minor question:
- Patients' questionnaires were filled in at home on the day after examinations.
Why pain was not evaluated after colonscopy and before leaving the endoscopy
ward?
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