Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: A non -randomised single centre cohort study, comparing standard  and modified bowel 
preparations, in adults with cystic fibrosis requiring colonoscopy.  
 
Version: 0 Date: 21 Jun 2018  
 
Reviewer: Quadri Alabi  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Review reports of "A non -randomised single centre cohort study comparing intensive and 
standard bowel preparation cleanse, in adults with cystic fibrosis requiring colonoscopy" with 
manuscript ID: BMGE -D-18-00287.  
- The topic; A non -randomised single centre cohort study comparing intensive and standard 
bowel preparation cleanse,  in adults with cystic fibrosis requiring colonoscopy" their should 
be a comma before "comparing".  
 
- The populations are very small  
 
- Authors should rewrite the their methods for clarity  
 
- This paper need limitation and recommendations session  
 
- The authors re commend intensive care bowel preparation over standard preparation cleanse 
for cystic fibrosis patients. but not every patients can afford intensive care.  
 
Discussion  
- In the first paragraph, authors concentrated more on the 2017 consensus recommendations 
for Colorectal Cancer Screening for CF patients than their study - no take home points for the 
reader. The discussion need remake also.  
Overall - the study need rigorous remakes.  
Authors should check the attached file for the review details.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does  the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions : 
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shar es in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you rec eived reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interest s in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare tha t I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open pee r review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the autho rs' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: A non -randomised single centre cohort study, comparing standard  and modified bowel 
preparations, in adults with cystic fibrosis requiring colonoscopy.  
 
Version: 0 Date: 21 Jun 2018  
 
Reviewer: Quadri Alabi  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Review reports of "A non -randomised single centre cohort study comparing intensive and 
standard bowel preparation cleanse, in adults with cystic fibrosis requiring colonoscopy" with 
manuscript ID: BMGE -D-18-00287.  
- The topic; A non -randomised single centre cohort study comparing intensive and standard 
bowel preparation cleanse,  in adults with cystic fibrosis requiring colonoscopy" their should 
be a comma before "comparing".  
 
- The populations are very small  
 
- Authors should rewrite the their methods for clarity  
 
- This paper need limitation and recommendations session  
 
- The authors re commend intensive care bowel preparation over standard preparation cleanse 
for cystic fibrosis patients. but not every patients can afford intensive care.  
 
Discussion  
- In the first paragraph, authors concentrated more on the 2017 consensus recommendations 
for Colorectal Cancer Screening for CF patients than their study - no take home points for the 
reader. The discussion need remake also.  
Overall - the study need rigorous remakes.  
Authors should check the attached file for the review details.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does  the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions : 
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shar es in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you rec eived reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interest s in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare tha t I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open pee r review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the autho rs' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: A non -randomised single centre cohort study, comparing standard  and modified bowel 
preparations, in adults with cystic fibrosis requiring colonoscopy.  
 
Version: 0 Date: 21 Jun 2018  
 
Reviewer: Quadri Alabi  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Review reports of "A non -randomised single centre cohort study comparing intensive and 
standard bowel preparation cleanse, in adults with cystic fibrosis requiring colonoscopy" with 
manuscript ID: BMGE -D-18-00287.  
- The topic; A non -randomised single centre cohort study comparing intensive and standard 
bowel preparation cleanse,  in adults with cystic fibrosis requiring colonoscopy" their should 
be a comma before "comparing".  
 
- The populations are very small  
 
- Authors should rewrite the their methods for clarity  
 
- This paper need limitation and recommendations session  
 
- The authors re commend intensive care bowel preparation over standard preparation cleanse 
for cystic fibrosis patients. but not every patients can afford intensive care.  
 
Discussion  
- In the first paragraph, authors concentrated more on the 2017 consensus recommendations 
for Colorectal Cancer Screening for CF patients than their study - no take home points for the 
reader. The discussion need remake also.  
Overall - the study need rigorous remakes.  
Authors should check the attached file for the review details.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does  the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions : 
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shar es in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you rec eived reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interest s in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare tha t I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open pee r review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the autho rs' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant