Reviewer's report
Title:Variable-stiffness colonoscope makes colonoscope easier?A
meta-analysis of the efficacy compared variable stiffness colonoscope with
standard adult colonoscope
Version: 4Date:13 April 2012
Reviewer: Javier Sola Vera
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions:
Numerous misspelled words. The text includes numerous grammatical and
syntactical errors (including, extensively, the body of the submission). Required a
complete review by an expert in English.
In the "discussion" the authors state: "In the subgroup analysis in our
meta-analysis, the cecal intubation time shortened with the use of adult VSC,
while Othman et al. found no difference between these two instruments." The
problem is that there is probably an error in the article by Othman et al. While the
text says that there is little difference in cecal intubation time in favor of the VSC,
the corresponding figure does not shows any difference. This is probably due to
a typographical error, because the confidence interval in the text is -2.00, -0.06
while the figure is -2.00, 0.06 (despite the "p" in the figure is 0.04). Given this
controversy, I recommend the authors a focus on commenting on the full group
differences with respect to meta-analysis of Othman.
In the "discussion" section, paragraph on complications, add the reference 14. In
the paragraph on limitations add more limitations: no universal method for using
VSC across the studies. Large tertiary centers which limits generalization to other
practice settings.
In "conclusions" section, I can not understand the phrase "probably complicated
the procedure at the mean time." The conclusions should be more easily
understood. Hard to follow. The conclusion "the VSC could be useful for patients
undergoing total unsedated colonoscopy" is not based on any results so I
recommend removing it.
Major compulsory revisions:
In the section "results", subsection "Subgroup and sensitivity analysis" is not
explained what type of anlalisis sensitivity to assess heterogeneity. What type of
analysis performed?.
which studies were exclude and which were the results in changes to the OR and
WMDs.
Discretionary revisions:
Table 2: in "cecal intubation rate", Why include 9 studies, if the meta-analysis
included 8?
Figure 4 is not neccesary.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Variable-stiffness colonoscope makes colonoscope easier?A
meta-analysis of the efficacy compared variable stiffness colonoscope with
standard adult colonoscope
Version: 4Date:13 April 2012
Reviewer: Javier Sola Vera
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions:
Numerous misspelled words. The text includes numerous grammatical and
syntactical errors (including, extensively, the body of the submission). Required a
complete review by an expert in English.
In the "discussion" the authors state: "In the subgroup analysis in our
meta-analysis, the cecal intubation time shortened with the use of adult VSC,
while Othman et al. found no difference between these two instruments." The
problem is that there is probably an error in the article by Othman et al. While the
text says that there is little difference in cecal intubation time in favor of the VSC,
the corresponding figure does not shows any difference. This is probably due to
a typographical error, because the confidence interval in the text is -2.00, -0.06
while the figure is -2.00, 0.06 (despite the "p" in the figure is 0.04). Given this
controversy, I recommend the authors a focus on commenting on the full group
differences with respect to meta-analysis of Othman.
In the "discussion" section, paragraph on complications, add the reference 14. In
the paragraph on limitations add more limitations: no universal method for using
VSC across the studies. Large tertiary centers which limits generalization to other
practice settings.
In "conclusions" section, I can not understand the phrase "probably complicated
the procedure at the mean time." The conclusions should be more easily
understood. Hard to follow. The conclusion "the VSC could be useful for patients
undergoing total unsedated colonoscopy" is not based on any results so I
recommend removing it.
Major compulsory revisions:
In the section "results", subsection "Subgroup and sensitivity analysis" is not
explained what type of anlalisis sensitivity to assess heterogeneity. What type of
analysis performed?.
which studies were exclude and which were the results in changes to the OR and
WMDs.
Discretionary revisions:
Table 2: in "cecal intubation rate", Why include 9 studies, if the meta-analysis
included 8?
Figure 4 is not neccesary.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Variable-stiffness colonoscope makes colonoscope easier?A
meta-analysis of the efficacy compared variable stiffness colonoscope with
standard adult colonoscope
Version: 4Date:13 April 2012
Reviewer: Javier Sola Vera
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions:
Numerous misspelled words. The text includes numerous grammatical and
syntactical errors (including, extensively, the body of the submission). Required a
complete review by an expert in English.
In the "discussion" the authors state: "In the subgroup analysis in our
meta-analysis, the cecal intubation time shortened with the use of adult VSC,
while Othman et al. found no difference between these two instruments." The
problem is that there is probably an error in the article by Othman et al. While the
text says that there is little difference in cecal intubation time in favor of the VSC,
the corresponding figure does not shows any difference. This is probably due to
a typographical error, because the confidence interval in the text is -2.00, -0.06
while the figure is -2.00, 0.06 (despite the "p" in the figure is 0.04). Given this
controversy, I recommend the authors a focus on commenting on the full group
differences with respect to meta-analysis of Othman.
In the "discussion" section, paragraph on complications, add the reference 14. In
the paragraph on limitations add more limitations: no universal method for using
VSC across the studies. Large tertiary centers which limits generalization to other
practice settings.
In "conclusions" section, I can not understand the phrase "probably complicated
the procedure at the mean time." The conclusions should be more easily
understood. Hard to follow. The conclusion "the VSC could be useful for patients
undergoing total unsedated colonoscopy" is not based on any results so I
recommend removing it.
Major compulsory revisions:
In the section "results", subsection "Subgroup and sensitivity analysis" is not
explained what type of anlalisis sensitivity to assess heterogeneity. What type of
analysis performed?.
which studies were exclude and which were the results in changes to the OR and
WMDs.
Discretionary revisions:
Table 2: in "cecal intubation rate", Why include 9 studies, if the meta-analysis
included 8?
Figure 4 is not neccesary.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant