Reviewer's report 
 Endoscopists attitudes on the publication of quality data for endoscopic procedures: a cross-sectionalTitle: 
survey 
 1  18 May 2007 Version: Date: 
 Robert H Fletcher Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors address and important issue. Outcomes of procedures have been shown to vary greatly by physician. Patients and their physicians should have the information needed to take this into account when chosing who will do their procedure. This report is clear and generally complete 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
Which non-parametrci tests were used? 
I was unsure what "collecting any data" meant. Do 25% of endoscopists record nothing about procedures or 
does this phrase refer to tabular data over and above notes in the patient's medical record? 
In the last paragraph of the discussion, should mention that to be interpretable to the general public, the 
data would have to be collected by a uniform method. 
Table 2 should show demominators. It is unclear to me how columns 5-8, "currently performing" etc, are professional groups and how they were used in the body of the manuscript. So that the tables are free-standing, the 5-point scale with 5 being the highest should be noted, along with p 
values. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Data are pleural ("these data" in discussion). 
A recent article from the US might be cited: Lieberman D, Nadel M, Smith R, Atkin W et al (Fletcher RH). 
Standardized colonoscopy reporting and data system (CO-RADS): Report of the Quality Assurance Task 
Force Group of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2007;65:757-766. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
Reviewer's report 
 Endoscopists attitudes on the publication of quality data for endoscopic procedures: a cross-sectionalTitle: 
survey 
 1  18 May 2007 Version: Date: 
 Robert H Fletcher Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors address and important issue. Outcomes of procedures have been shown to vary greatly by physician. Patients and their physicians should have the information needed to take this into account when chosing who will do their procedure. This report is clear and generally complete 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
Which non-parametrci tests were used? 
I was unsure what "collecting any data" meant. Do 25% of endoscopists record nothing about procedures or 
does this phrase refer to tabular data over and above notes in the patient's medical record? 
In the last paragraph of the discussion, should mention that to be interpretable to the general public, the 
data would have to be collected by a uniform method. 
Table 2 should show demominators. It is unclear to me how columns 5-8, "currently performing" etc, are professional groups and how they were used in the body of the manuscript. So that the tables are free-standing, the 5-point scale with 5 being the highest should be noted, along with p 
values. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Data are pleural ("these data" in discussion). 
A recent article from the US might be cited: Lieberman D, Nadel M, Smith R, Atkin W et al (Fletcher RH). 
Standardized colonoscopy reporting and data system (CO-RADS): Report of the Quality Assurance Task 
Force Group of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2007;65:757-766. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Endoscopists attitudes on the publication of quality data for endoscopic procedures: a cross-sectionalTitle: 
survey 
 1  18 May 2007 Version: Date: 
 Robert H Fletcher Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors address and important issue. Outcomes of procedures have been shown to vary greatly by physician. Patients and their physicians should have the information needed to take this into account when chosing who will do their procedure. This report is clear and generally complete 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
Which non-parametrci tests were used? 
I was unsure what "collecting any data" meant. Do 25% of endoscopists record nothing about procedures or 
does this phrase refer to tabular data over and above notes in the patient's medical record? 
In the last paragraph of the discussion, should mention that to be interpretable to the general public, the 
data would have to be collected by a uniform method. 
Table 2 should show demominators. It is unclear to me how columns 5-8, "currently performing" etc, are professional groups and how they were used in the body of the manuscript. So that the tables are free-standing, the 5-point scale with 5 being the highest should be noted, along with p 
values. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Data are pleural ("these data" in discussion). 
A recent article from the US might be cited: Lieberman D, Nadel M, Smith R, Atkin W et al (Fletcher RH). 
Standardized colonoscopy reporting and data system (CO-RADS): Report of the Quality Assurance Task 
Force Group of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2007;65:757-766. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
assistant