Reviewer's report
Title:Age-specific prevalence of serrated polyps and its subgroups by screening
colonoscopy
Version:2Date:10 November 2013
Reviewer: Leticia Moreira
Reviewer's report:
Age-specific prevalence of serrated polyps and its subgroups by screening
colonoscopy
This study analyzes the prevalence of serrated polyps in a large cohort of
asymptomatic subjects, stratifying this prevalence by age.
In general, the study is well done, and includes more than 28,000 subjects,
although I have some comments:
Minor comments:
1) In the introduction, the authors describe sessile and also traditional serrated
adenomas as flat or sessile, poorly demarcated lesions, although literature
describe traditional serrated polyps mainly as pedunculated lesions.
2) Discussion should be modified; it is more a description of other studies, rather
than a discussion of this manuscript. Please comment the strengths and
limitations of the study.
Major comments:
1) First of all, the authors should review the language; there are many mistakes
in redaction that make reading difficult, mainly in the introduction.
2) Aim of the study is not well correlated with the conclusions. Please modify it.
3) I am concern about including patients of 20´s and 80´s years old
(asymptomatic patients? check-up?, do young people have relatives with
colorectal cancer). Please clarify this point.
4) Serrated polyposis syndrome was diagnosed? How many?
5) Authors should include p-values in the % comparing ADR (table 2 and 3), as
well as p-value comparing different ages (table 4), measuring the real difference
between young and old people.
6) Please clarify the association between colorectal cancer and serrated
polyps.To arrive to that conclusion, authors should analyze the prevalence of
serrated polyps by age, and also by type of serrated polyp (sessile, hiperplastic,
traditional), and size (< or > 10 mm). For example, do younger patients have
more hiperplastic polyps at the rectum of <5 mm of diameter?, so it is not
necessary a endoscopic surveillance. If authours will recommend in the
conclusion endoscopic screening before age 50, should justify that this risk is not
given only for small hiperplastic polyps in the rectum, which have no malignant
potential. Please clarify this important point.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:Age-specific prevalence of serrated polyps and its subgroups by screening
colonoscopy
Version:2Date:10 November 2013
Reviewer: Leticia Moreira
Reviewer's report:
Age-specific prevalence of serrated polyps and its subgroups by screening
colonoscopy
This study analyzes the prevalence of serrated polyps in a large cohort of
asymptomatic subjects, stratifying this prevalence by age.
In general, the study is well done, and includes more than 28,000 subjects,
although I have some comments:
Minor comments:
1) In the introduction, the authors describe sessile and also traditional serrated
adenomas as flat or sessile, poorly demarcated lesions, although literature
describe traditional serrated polyps mainly as pedunculated lesions.
2) Discussion should be modified; it is more a description of other studies, rather
than a discussion of this manuscript. Please comment the strengths and
limitations of the study.
Major comments:
1) First of all, the authors should review the language; there are many mistakes
in redaction that make reading difficult, mainly in the introduction.
2) Aim of the study is not well correlated with the conclusions. Please modify it.
3) I am concern about including patients of 20´s and 80´s years old
(asymptomatic patients? check-up?, do young people have relatives with
colorectal cancer). Please clarify this point.
4) Serrated polyposis syndrome was diagnosed? How many?
5) Authors should include p-values in the % comparing ADR (table 2 and 3), as
well as p-value comparing different ages (table 4), measuring the real difference
between young and old people.
6) Please clarify the association between colorectal cancer and serrated
polyps.To arrive to that conclusion, authors should analyze the prevalence of
serrated polyps by age, and also by type of serrated polyp (sessile, hiperplastic,
traditional), and size (< or > 10 mm). For example, do younger patients have
more hiperplastic polyps at the rectum of <5 mm of diameter?, so it is not
necessary a endoscopic surveillance. If authours will recommend in the
conclusion endoscopic screening before age 50, should justify that this risk is not
given only for small hiperplastic polyps in the rectum, which have no malignant
potential. Please clarify this important point.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:Age-specific prevalence of serrated polyps and its subgroups by screening
colonoscopy
Version:2Date:10 November 2013
Reviewer: Leticia Moreira
Reviewer's report:
Age-specific prevalence of serrated polyps and its subgroups by screening
colonoscopy
This study analyzes the prevalence of serrated polyps in a large cohort of
asymptomatic subjects, stratifying this prevalence by age.
In general, the study is well done, and includes more than 28,000 subjects,
although I have some comments:
Minor comments:
1) In the introduction, the authors describe sessile and also traditional serrated
adenomas as flat or sessile, poorly demarcated lesions, although literature
describe traditional serrated polyps mainly as pedunculated lesions.
2) Discussion should be modified; it is more a description of other studies, rather
than a discussion of this manuscript. Please comment the strengths and
limitations of the study.
Major comments:
1) First of all, the authors should review the language; there are many mistakes
in redaction that make reading difficult, mainly in the introduction.
2) Aim of the study is not well correlated with the conclusions. Please modify it.
3) I am concern about including patients of 20´s and 80´s years old
(asymptomatic patients? check-up?, do young people have relatives with
colorectal cancer). Please clarify this point.
4) Serrated polyposis syndrome was diagnosed? How many?
5) Authors should include p-values in the % comparing ADR (table 2 and 3), as
well as p-value comparing different ages (table 4), measuring the real difference
between young and old people.
6) Please clarify the association between colorectal cancer and serrated
polyps.To arrive to that conclusion, authors should analyze the prevalence of
serrated polyps by age, and also by type of serrated polyp (sessile, hiperplastic,
traditional), and size (< or > 10 mm). For example, do younger patients have
more hiperplastic polyps at the rectum of <5 mm of diameter?, so it is not
necessary a endoscopic surveillance. If authours will recommend in the
conclusion endoscopic screening before age 50, should justify that this risk is not
given only for small hiperplastic polyps in the rectum, which have no malignant
potential. Please clarify this important point.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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