Reviewer's report
Title:An association between colonic adenoma and abdominal obesity : A cross
sectional study.
Version: 4Date:26 September 2008
Reviewer: patricia thompson
Reviewer's report:
1.Is the question posed by the authors well defined? The question posed by the
authors is well defined. They report a positive association between abdominal
obesity, defined by set cutoffs of waist circumference, and colorectal adenoma
using a cross sectional study of 165 cases and 365 polyp free controls.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described? The methods used are
appropriate and are well described. The population that was used and the
measurements are well described.
3. Are the data sound? The data are sound and replicate what is an already a
fairly well recognized association between abdominal obesity and colorectal
adenoma.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? Generally, the manuscript does adhere to the relevant standards for
reporting and data deposition.
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data? The discussion and conclusions are supported by the data.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? The author’s do not clearly state the
limitations other than to say that they have limitations. This needs to be
improved. Major Compulsory Revision
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished? The author’s do not do a good job summarizing
the wealth of information on obesity, including waist circumference, and risk of
colorectal adenoma. This is a major weakness in the manuscript that must be
addressed in a revision. The statement that these studies should be replicated in
other prospective populations should be removed and the authors should include
discussion of the Harvard studies from the nineties that reported the strong
positive association between central obesity measured as waist and risk of
adenoma. This is categorized as a Major Compulsory Revision.
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
The title and the abstract do communicate the major message of the manuscript
9. Is the writing acceptable? The author needs an English editor to review the
manuscript as part of the revision. The language is quite broken and in places
suffers from incomplete thoughts and sentences. This will greatly improve the
readability of the manuscript by a wider audience. This is categorized as a Major
Compulsory Revision.
Additional comment: This manuscript would be greatly improved by a multivariate
analysis that included the biochemical parameters of metabolic syndrome. It
would also raise the novelty and impact. This is considered a Discretionary
Revisions.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:An association between colonic adenoma and abdominal obesity : A cross
sectional study.
Version: 4Date:26 September 2008
Reviewer: patricia thompson
Reviewer's report:
1.Is the question posed by the authors well defined? The question posed by the
authors is well defined. They report a positive association between abdominal
obesity, defined by set cutoffs of waist circumference, and colorectal adenoma
using a cross sectional study of 165 cases and 365 polyp free controls.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described? The methods used are
appropriate and are well described. The population that was used and the
measurements are well described.
3. Are the data sound? The data are sound and replicate what is an already a
fairly well recognized association between abdominal obesity and colorectal
adenoma.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? Generally, the manuscript does adhere to the relevant standards for
reporting and data deposition.
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data? The discussion and conclusions are supported by the data.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? The author’s do not clearly state the
limitations other than to say that they have limitations. This needs to be
improved. Major Compulsory Revision
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished? The author’s do not do a good job summarizing
the wealth of information on obesity, including waist circumference, and risk of
colorectal adenoma. This is a major weakness in the manuscript that must be
addressed in a revision. The statement that these studies should be replicated in
other prospective populations should be removed and the authors should include
discussion of the Harvard studies from the nineties that reported the strong
positive association between central obesity measured as waist and risk of
adenoma. This is categorized as a Major Compulsory Revision.
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
The title and the abstract do communicate the major message of the manuscript
9. Is the writing acceptable? The author needs an English editor to review the
manuscript as part of the revision. The language is quite broken and in places
suffers from incomplete thoughts and sentences. This will greatly improve the
readability of the manuscript by a wider audience. This is categorized as a Major
Compulsory Revision.
Additional comment: This manuscript would be greatly improved by a multivariate
analysis that included the biochemical parameters of metabolic syndrome. It
would also raise the novelty and impact. This is considered a Discretionary
Revisions.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:An association between colonic adenoma and abdominal obesity : A cross
sectional study.
Version: 4Date:26 September 2008
Reviewer: patricia thompson
Reviewer's report:
1.Is the question posed by the authors well defined? The question posed by the
authors is well defined. They report a positive association between abdominal
obesity, defined by set cutoffs of waist circumference, and colorectal adenoma
using a cross sectional study of 165 cases and 365 polyp free controls.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described? The methods used are
appropriate and are well described. The population that was used and the
measurements are well described.
3. Are the data sound? The data are sound and replicate what is an already a
fairly well recognized association between abdominal obesity and colorectal
adenoma.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? Generally, the manuscript does adhere to the relevant standards for
reporting and data deposition.
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data? The discussion and conclusions are supported by the data.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? The author’s do not clearly state the
limitations other than to say that they have limitations. This needs to be
improved. Major Compulsory Revision
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished? The author’s do not do a good job summarizing
the wealth of information on obesity, including waist circumference, and risk of
colorectal adenoma. This is a major weakness in the manuscript that must be
addressed in a revision. The statement that these studies should be replicated in
other prospective populations should be removed and the authors should include
discussion of the Harvard studies from the nineties that reported the strong
positive association between central obesity measured as waist and risk of
adenoma. This is categorized as a Major Compulsory Revision.
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
The title and the abstract do communicate the major message of the manuscript
9. Is the writing acceptable? The author needs an English editor to review the
manuscript as part of the revision. The language is quite broken and in places
suffers from incomplete thoughts and sentences. This will greatly improve the
readability of the manuscript by a wider audience. This is categorized as a Major
Compulsory Revision.
Additional comment: This manuscript would be greatly improved by a multivariate
analysis that included the biochemical parameters of metabolic syndrome. It
would also raise the novelty and impact. This is considered a Discretionary
Revisions.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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