Title: Survival outcomes of population-wide colonoscopy screening: Reanalysis of the NordICC
data
Version: 1 Date: 11 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
The manuscript entitled "Survival outcomes of population-wide colonoscopy screening:
Reanalysis of the NordICC data" re-evaluates the data from a study that has been the topic of
extensive debate.  My concerns are as follows:
- Clarify the rationale behind the use of RMST/RMTL methods over traditional hazard ratios
(HR) and why this approach is crucial given the limitations of the original NordICC study.
Specifically, it should address why these methods are superior in the context of the violated
proportional hazards assumption.
- The discussion should include a more balanced analysis of why colonoscopy may not show
survival benefits, considering other factors such as improvements in treatment options or the
declining incidence of colorectal cancer.
-  Some sections, particularly in the introduction and discussion, need better clarity and flow. For
example, the introduction could more clearly articulate the gap this reanalysis is filling. At the
same time, the discussion could benefit from more detailed explanations of statistical concepts
for readers who may not be familiar with RMST or RMTL.
Kind regards
Title: Survival outcomes of population-wide colonoscopy screening: Reanalysis of the NordICC
data
Version: 1 Date: 11 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
The manuscript entitled "Survival outcomes of population-wide colonoscopy screening:
Reanalysis of the NordICC data" re-evaluates the data from a study that has been the topic of
extensive debate.  My concerns are as follows:
- Clarify the rationale behind the use of RMST/RMTL methods over traditional hazard ratios
(HR) and why this approach is crucial given the limitations of the original NordICC study.
Specifically, it should address why these methods are superior in the context of the violated
proportional hazards assumption.
- The discussion should include a more balanced analysis of why colonoscopy may not show
survival benefits, considering other factors such as improvements in treatment options or the
declining incidence of colorectal cancer.
-  Some sections, particularly in the introduction and discussion, need better clarity and flow. For
example, the introduction could more clearly articulate the gap this reanalysis is filling. At the
same time, the discussion could benefit from more detailed explanations of statistical concepts
for readers who may not be familiar with RMST or RMTL.
Kind regards
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Survival outcomes of population-wide colonoscopy screening: Reanalysis of the NordICC
data
Version: 1 Date: 11 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
The manuscript entitled "Survival outcomes of population-wide colonoscopy screening:
Reanalysis of the NordICC data" re-evaluates the data from a study that has been the topic of
extensive debate.  My concerns are as follows:
- Clarify the rationale behind the use of RMST/RMTL methods over traditional hazard ratios
(HR) and why this approach is crucial given the limitations of the original NordICC study.
Specifically, it should address why these methods are superior in the context of the violated
proportional hazards assumption.
- The discussion should include a more balanced analysis of why colonoscopy may not show
survival benefits, considering other factors such as improvements in treatment options or the
declining incidence of colorectal cancer.
-  Some sections, particularly in the introduction and discussion, need better clarity and flow. For
example, the introduction could more clearly articulate the gap this reanalysis is filling. At the
same time, the discussion could benefit from more detailed explanations of statistical concepts
for readers who may not be familiar with RMST or RMTL.
Kind regards
assistant