Reviewer's report
Title:High Success Rate of Repeat Colonoscopy with Standard Endoscopes in
Patients Referred for Prior Incomplete Colonoscopy
Version: 2Date:7 August 2013
Reviewer: Tom Moreels
Reviewer's report:
The authors provide a retrospective analysis of different ways to deal with
previous incomplete colonoscopy due to difficult anatomy in 100 patients. Repeat
colonoscopy attempts were all performed by a single and experienced
endoscopist in a high volume center. Although there are several limitations to this
study (as depicted in the manuscript), it has specific scientific value.
A. Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. Overall, this study reflects common endoscopic practice to deal with
incomplete conventional colonoscopy in a high volume center. This should be
clearly stated in the Discussion section. The manuscript cannot be considered a
controlled comparison (which the authors do not claim), and therefore
conclusions and recommendations should be considered with substantial
criticism. To clarifiy this aspect of the recommendations, it is adviced to add a
flow-chart depicting what the authors suggest to do in case of incomplete
colonoscopy due to tortuous and redundant colon (and other reasons of
incomplete colonoscopy) in their center. This flow-chart should also include the
type of sedation/anesthesia recommended since this is an important factor
affecting cecal intubation rate (and was only briefly touched upon in the current
manuscript).
2. Since the manuscript focusses upon the difference between tortuous and
redundant colon, these terms should be clarified (especially to non-native english
speaking readers).
3. Standard endoscopes may encompass a large variaty of endoscopes. The
authors should define the standard colonoscope, gastroscope and pediatric
colonoscope (length, diameter, variable stiffness, manufacturer,...) since they
may vary substantially. Nowhere throughout the manuscript the aspect of
variable stiffness endoscopes is described and discussed.
4. Table 3 is obsolete and should be deleted. Only the cecal intubation rates
obtained with the single-balloon enteroscope in tortuous and redundant colon is
of interest.
B. Minor Essential Revisions.
1. There are some typographical errors (mainly missing words) throughout the
manuscript needing correction.
2. Journal names of references 10, 11 and 21 contain the journal's organisation
names which should be deleted.
3. Abbreviations: CRC is colorectal cancer, and not colorectal cancer screening.
C. Discretionary Revisions:
Not applicable.
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:High Success Rate of Repeat Colonoscopy with Standard Endoscopes in
Patients Referred for Prior Incomplete Colonoscopy
Version: 2Date:7 August 2013
Reviewer: Tom Moreels
Reviewer's report:
The authors provide a retrospective analysis of different ways to deal with
previous incomplete colonoscopy due to difficult anatomy in 100 patients. Repeat
colonoscopy attempts were all performed by a single and experienced
endoscopist in a high volume center. Although there are several limitations to this
study (as depicted in the manuscript), it has specific scientific value.
A. Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. Overall, this study reflects common endoscopic practice to deal with
incomplete conventional colonoscopy in a high volume center. This should be
clearly stated in the Discussion section. The manuscript cannot be considered a
controlled comparison (which the authors do not claim), and therefore
conclusions and recommendations should be considered with substantial
criticism. To clarifiy this aspect of the recommendations, it is adviced to add a
flow-chart depicting what the authors suggest to do in case of incomplete
colonoscopy due to tortuous and redundant colon (and other reasons of
incomplete colonoscopy) in their center. This flow-chart should also include the
type of sedation/anesthesia recommended since this is an important factor
affecting cecal intubation rate (and was only briefly touched upon in the current
manuscript).
2. Since the manuscript focusses upon the difference between tortuous and
redundant colon, these terms should be clarified (especially to non-native english
speaking readers).
3. Standard endoscopes may encompass a large variaty of endoscopes. The
authors should define the standard colonoscope, gastroscope and pediatric
colonoscope (length, diameter, variable stiffness, manufacturer,...) since they
may vary substantially. Nowhere throughout the manuscript the aspect of
variable stiffness endoscopes is described and discussed.
4. Table 3 is obsolete and should be deleted. Only the cecal intubation rates
obtained with the single-balloon enteroscope in tortuous and redundant colon is
of interest.
B. Minor Essential Revisions.
1. There are some typographical errors (mainly missing words) throughout the
manuscript needing correction.
2. Journal names of references 10, 11 and 21 contain the journal's organisation
names which should be deleted.
3. Abbreviations: CRC is colorectal cancer, and not colorectal cancer screening.
C. Discretionary Revisions:
Not applicable.
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:High Success Rate of Repeat Colonoscopy with Standard Endoscopes in
Patients Referred for Prior Incomplete Colonoscopy
Version: 2Date:7 August 2013
Reviewer: Tom Moreels
Reviewer's report:
The authors provide a retrospective analysis of different ways to deal with
previous incomplete colonoscopy due to difficult anatomy in 100 patients. Repeat
colonoscopy attempts were all performed by a single and experienced
endoscopist in a high volume center. Although there are several limitations to this
study (as depicted in the manuscript), it has specific scientific value.
A. Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. Overall, this study reflects common endoscopic practice to deal with
incomplete conventional colonoscopy in a high volume center. This should be
clearly stated in the Discussion section. The manuscript cannot be considered a
controlled comparison (which the authors do not claim), and therefore
conclusions and recommendations should be considered with substantial
criticism. To clarifiy this aspect of the recommendations, it is adviced to add a
flow-chart depicting what the authors suggest to do in case of incomplete
colonoscopy due to tortuous and redundant colon (and other reasons of
incomplete colonoscopy) in their center. This flow-chart should also include the
type of sedation/anesthesia recommended since this is an important factor
affecting cecal intubation rate (and was only briefly touched upon in the current
manuscript).
2. Since the manuscript focusses upon the difference between tortuous and
redundant colon, these terms should be clarified (especially to non-native english
speaking readers).
3. Standard endoscopes may encompass a large variaty of endoscopes. The
authors should define the standard colonoscope, gastroscope and pediatric
colonoscope (length, diameter, variable stiffness, manufacturer,...) since they
may vary substantially. Nowhere throughout the manuscript the aspect of
variable stiffness endoscopes is described and discussed.
4. Table 3 is obsolete and should be deleted. Only the cecal intubation rates
obtained with the single-balloon enteroscope in tortuous and redundant colon is
of interest.
B. Minor Essential Revisions.
1. There are some typographical errors (mainly missing words) throughout the
manuscript needing correction.
2. Journal names of references 10, 11 and 21 contain the journal's organisation
names which should be deleted.
3. Abbreviations: CRC is colorectal cancer, and not colorectal cancer screening.
C. Discretionary Revisions:
Not applicable.
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