Reviewer's report
Title:The value of age and medical history for predicting colorectal cancer and
adenomas in people referred for colonoscopy.
Version: 2Date:20 June 2011
Reviewer: Michael Hoffmeister
Reviewer's report:
Thank you very much for your reply (however, changes in the manuscript should
be highlighted).
Major:
(1) In table 2, please provide the absolute numbers of participants and their
percentage with respect to all participants (N (%)) next to the variable subgroups,
such as age groups, gender, colonoscopy yes/no etc.
(2) Page 15, para 2, last sentence: the sentence about cancer prevalence should
be re-evaluated, as your low prevalence of cancer is presumably attributable to
the high proportion of subjects under 50 years (27%), whereas the study (not
"studies") on screening colonoscopy cited included subjects aged 40-80 years
only.
(3) Conclusions, page 16: In your reply, and in the abstract you speak of
'prioritisation' as one major use of the model. This is not reflected in the
conclusions of the discussion.
(4) Methods, page 5, para 2: Please provide a sound description of the study
design. This is likely not a 'trial' (which is commonly used as abbreviation of
'clinical trial'). Rather, it seems to be a cross-sectional study among patients
undergoing colonscopy.
Minor:
(5) Conclusions, page 16, first sentence: I guess 'developed' rather than
'developing' countries were referred to.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:The value of age and medical history for predicting colorectal cancer and
adenomas in people referred for colonoscopy.
Version: 2Date:20 June 2011
Reviewer: Michael Hoffmeister
Reviewer's report:
Thank you very much for your reply (however, changes in the manuscript should
be highlighted).
Major:
(1) In table 2, please provide the absolute numbers of participants and their
percentage with respect to all participants (N (%)) next to the variable subgroups,
such as age groups, gender, colonoscopy yes/no etc.
(2) Page 15, para 2, last sentence: the sentence about cancer prevalence should
be re-evaluated, as your low prevalence of cancer is presumably attributable to
the high proportion of subjects under 50 years (27%), whereas the study (not
"studies") on screening colonoscopy cited included subjects aged 40-80 years
only.
(3) Conclusions, page 16: In your reply, and in the abstract you speak of
'prioritisation' as one major use of the model. This is not reflected in the
conclusions of the discussion.
(4) Methods, page 5, para 2: Please provide a sound description of the study
design. This is likely not a 'trial' (which is commonly used as abbreviation of
'clinical trial'). Rather, it seems to be a cross-sectional study among patients
undergoing colonscopy.
Minor:
(5) Conclusions, page 16, first sentence: I guess 'developed' rather than
'developing' countries were referred to.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:The value of age and medical history for predicting colorectal cancer and
adenomas in people referred for colonoscopy.
Version: 2Date:20 June 2011
Reviewer: Michael Hoffmeister
Reviewer's report:
Thank you very much for your reply (however, changes in the manuscript should
be highlighted).
Major:
(1) In table 2, please provide the absolute numbers of participants and their
percentage with respect to all participants (N (%)) next to the variable subgroups,
such as age groups, gender, colonoscopy yes/no etc.
(2) Page 15, para 2, last sentence: the sentence about cancer prevalence should
be re-evaluated, as your low prevalence of cancer is presumably attributable to
the high proportion of subjects under 50 years (27%), whereas the study (not
"studies") on screening colonoscopy cited included subjects aged 40-80 years
only.
(3) Conclusions, page 16: In your reply, and in the abstract you speak of
'prioritisation' as one major use of the model. This is not reflected in the
conclusions of the discussion.
(4) Methods, page 5, para 2: Please provide a sound description of the study
design. This is likely not a 'trial' (which is commonly used as abbreviation of
'clinical trial'). Rather, it seems to be a cross-sectional study among patients
undergoing colonscopy.
Minor:
(5) Conclusions, page 16, first sentence: I guess 'developed' rather than
'developing' countries were referred to.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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