Reviewer's report 
 Inter-observer agreement in the assessment of endoscopic findings in ulcerative colitis Title: 
 1  16 February 2004 Version: Date: 
 Rene Lambert Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors analyze inter-observer variations in the endoscopic 
description ( based upon soft indicators requiring a scale) of inflammatory changes in the colonic mucosa. All attempts to improve the precision and reliability of the endoscopy 
report are welcome. The methodology is correct as the 
statistical analysis of the variance Two groups of endoscopists (experienced n = 15) and non experienced ( n= 21) are compared. Most previous reports used still images, here there are video-tapes . Overall 
the conclusion is optimistic because there is no serious discrepancy 
between the 2 goups ; there is ony an increased variance among the young endoscopists. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) No major revision required 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
In the method section the authors should give a definition of the 
variables analyzed: the 4 variables of the old Baron index to determine the EAI, and the other variables.As an example the difference between an erosion and an ulceration should be given, granularity should 
be described as well as the distinction between erythema, friability, 
blood oozing ... 
In the discussion the authors should be more precise on whether they feel 
that the 4 variables of the Baron index are enough, whether the 
granularity should be added on whether a 8 variable index , plus the degree of inflammation should be adopted 
A paragaph comparing the endoscopic assessement in grading ulcerative 
colitis and in grading esophagitis should be added. The report by 
Lundell at al ( Gut 1999) deals with similar variables and similar problems for inflammatory mucosal lesions 
In the introduction the authors should explain that this work is a 
continuation of the work published by them selves in ocotber 2003 in endoscopy ( De Lange..) on the standardization of the endoscopy report 
in ulcerative colitis 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) No comment 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
No competing interest 
Reviewer's report 
 Inter-observer agreement in the assessment of endoscopic findings in ulcerative colitis Title: 
 1  16 February 2004 Version: Date: 
 Rene Lambert Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors analyze inter-observer variations in the endoscopic 
description ( based upon soft indicators requiring a scale) of inflammatory changes in the colonic mucosa. All attempts to improve the precision and reliability of the endoscopy 
report are welcome. The methodology is correct as the 
statistical analysis of the variance Two groups of endoscopists (experienced n = 15) and non experienced ( n= 21) are compared. Most previous reports used still images, here there are video-tapes . Overall 
the conclusion is optimistic because there is no serious discrepancy 
between the 2 goups ; there is ony an increased variance among the young endoscopists. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) No major revision required 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
In the method section the authors should give a definition of the 
variables analyzed: the 4 variables of the old Baron index to determine the EAI, and the other variables.As an example the difference between an erosion and an ulceration should be given, granularity should 
be described as well as the distinction between erythema, friability, 
blood oozing ... 
In the discussion the authors should be more precise on whether they feel 
that the 4 variables of the Baron index are enough, whether the 
granularity should be added on whether a 8 variable index , plus the degree of inflammation should be adopted 
A paragaph comparing the endoscopic assessement in grading ulcerative 
colitis and in grading esophagitis should be added. The report by 
Lundell at al ( Gut 1999) deals with similar variables and similar problems for inflammatory mucosal lesions 
In the introduction the authors should explain that this work is a 
continuation of the work published by them selves in ocotber 2003 in endoscopy ( De Lange..) on the standardization of the endoscopy report 
in ulcerative colitis 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) No comment 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
No competing interest 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Inter-observer agreement in the assessment of endoscopic findings in ulcerative colitis Title: 
 1  16 February 2004 Version: Date: 
 Rene Lambert Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors analyze inter-observer variations in the endoscopic 
description ( based upon soft indicators requiring a scale) of inflammatory changes in the colonic mucosa. All attempts to improve the precision and reliability of the endoscopy 
report are welcome. The methodology is correct as the 
statistical analysis of the variance Two groups of endoscopists (experienced n = 15) and non experienced ( n= 21) are compared. Most previous reports used still images, here there are video-tapes . Overall 
the conclusion is optimistic because there is no serious discrepancy 
between the 2 goups ; there is ony an increased variance among the young endoscopists. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) No major revision required 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
In the method section the authors should give a definition of the 
variables analyzed: the 4 variables of the old Baron index to determine the EAI, and the other variables.As an example the difference between an erosion and an ulceration should be given, granularity should 
be described as well as the distinction between erythema, friability, 
blood oozing ... 
In the discussion the authors should be more precise on whether they feel 
that the 4 variables of the Baron index are enough, whether the 
granularity should be added on whether a 8 variable index , plus the degree of inflammation should be adopted 
A paragaph comparing the endoscopic assessement in grading ulcerative 
colitis and in grading esophagitis should be added. The report by 
Lundell at al ( Gut 1999) deals with similar variables and similar problems for inflammatory mucosal lesions 
In the introduction the authors should explain that this work is a 
continuation of the work published by them selves in ocotber 2003 in endoscopy ( De Lange..) on the standardization of the endoscopy report 
in ulcerative colitis 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) No comment 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
No competing interest 
assistant