Title: Comparing the bowel cleansing efficacy between sodium picosulfate vs. 2L polyethylene
glycol electrolyte lavage solution for colonoscopy: A prospective observational study
Version: 6 Date: 08 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Abstract
"Secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate, adverse reactions, and patient compliance."
missing  BBPS Total and segment scores
Background
"thereby achieving superior bowel preparation with minimal gastrointestinal reactions " I would
remove this since it just repeats what you say later.
"In addition, the unique orange flavour of PICO is easily accepted by the patients." I would
eliminate this.,
Methods
Lines 123 to 125  "a packet of  A (Bor C)" should be "packet A" etc.
"All patients will be asked " were asked
"and the adequate bowel cleansing rate referred to the proportion of patients with all three
segments scoring # 2, compared to the total number of patients " this is probably not needed.
Results
"And there was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of low-risk populations
between the PICO and 2L PEG-ELS groups (46.0% vs. 45.0%, P=0.595). " I would eliminate
this. If you use it, you need to explain what low-risk populations are (low-risk patients for an
inadequate preparation).
Discussion
"Although the adequate bowel cleaning rate showed no significant difference between the two
groups, the PICO group achieved a better performance in the BBPS scores of the total[(6.90 ±
1.19) vs. (6.81 ± 1.14), P=0.016] and the right colon[(2.15 ± 0.53) vs. (2.11 ± 0.51), P=0.005]. "
Repetitive and you are not using statistically significant.
Suggest:
" the PICO group  had statistically significantly better BBPS total scores (6.90 ± 1.19) vs. (6.81
± 1.14), P=0.016] and the  right segment scores[(2.15 ± 0.53) vs. (2.11 ± 0.51), P=0.005]."
You need to write out the first reference to ESGE "European Society of Gastrointestinal
Endoscopy "
Line 256 - what do yo mean by "a better trend " was it statistically significant? If not you should
not include it or state it was a non statistically significant finding but supported your findings.
Figure 1 - I would list
Failure to complete colonoscopy (give #)
Absence of BBPS scores (give #)
Previous Colon Resection (give #).
How is 32 patients were excluded due to inclompete information different than missing BBPS?
Maybe you can clarify that.
Table 1
"Recheck" needs to be clarified (? history of adenomatous polyps or cancer)
"Other is a very high number" - what is this? Usually other is a small number.
Table 2
Final Comment: Your paper has come a long way since the first draft and you should be proud
of its evolution.
I have recommended it be accepted but I would make the minor changes above (mostly to shorten
it) but also to clarify some areas.
Title: Comparing the bowel cleansing efficacy between sodium picosulfate vs. 2L polyethylene
glycol electrolyte lavage solution for colonoscopy: A prospective observational study
Version: 6 Date: 08 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Abstract
"Secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate, adverse reactions, and patient compliance."
missing  BBPS Total and segment scores
Background
"thereby achieving superior bowel preparation with minimal gastrointestinal reactions " I would
remove this since it just repeats what you say later.
"In addition, the unique orange flavour of PICO is easily accepted by the patients." I would
eliminate this.,
Methods
Lines 123 to 125  "a packet of  A (Bor C)" should be "packet A" etc.
"All patients will be asked " were asked
"and the adequate bowel cleansing rate referred to the proportion of patients with all three
segments scoring # 2, compared to the total number of patients " this is probably not needed.
Results
"And there was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of low-risk populations
between the PICO and 2L PEG-ELS groups (46.0% vs. 45.0%, P=0.595). " I would eliminate
this. If you use it, you need to explain what low-risk populations are (low-risk patients for an
inadequate preparation).
Discussion
"Although the adequate bowel cleaning rate showed no significant difference between the two
groups, the PICO group achieved a better performance in the BBPS scores of the total[(6.90 ±
1.19) vs. (6.81 ± 1.14), P=0.016] and the right colon[(2.15 ± 0.53) vs. (2.11 ± 0.51), P=0.005]. "
Repetitive and you are not using statistically significant.
Suggest:
" the PICO group  had statistically significantly better BBPS total scores (6.90 ± 1.19) vs. (6.81
± 1.14), P=0.016] and the  right segment scores[(2.15 ± 0.53) vs. (2.11 ± 0.51), P=0.005]."
You need to write out the first reference to ESGE "European Society of Gastrointestinal
Endoscopy "
Line 256 - what do yo mean by "a better trend " was it statistically significant? If not you should
not include it or state it was a non statistically significant finding but supported your findings.
Figure 1 - I would list
Failure to complete colonoscopy (give #)
Absence of BBPS scores (give #)
Previous Colon Resection (give #).
How is 32 patients were excluded due to inclompete information different than missing BBPS?
Maybe you can clarify that.
Table 1
"Recheck" needs to be clarified (? history of adenomatous polyps or cancer)
"Other is a very high number" - what is this? Usually other is a small number.
Table 2
Final Comment: Your paper has come a long way since the first draft and you should be proud
of its evolution.
I have recommended it be accepted but I would make the minor changes above (mostly to shorten
it) but also to clarify some areas.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Comparing the bowel cleansing efficacy between sodium picosulfate vs. 2L polyethylene
glycol electrolyte lavage solution for colonoscopy: A prospective observational study
Version: 6 Date: 08 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Abstract
"Secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate, adverse reactions, and patient compliance."
missing  BBPS Total and segment scores
Background
"thereby achieving superior bowel preparation with minimal gastrointestinal reactions " I would
remove this since it just repeats what you say later.
"In addition, the unique orange flavour of PICO is easily accepted by the patients." I would
eliminate this.,
Methods
Lines 123 to 125  "a packet of  A (Bor C)" should be "packet A" etc.
"All patients will be asked " were asked
"and the adequate bowel cleansing rate referred to the proportion of patients with all three
segments scoring # 2, compared to the total number of patients " this is probably not needed.
Results
"And there was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of low-risk populations
between the PICO and 2L PEG-ELS groups (46.0% vs. 45.0%, P=0.595). " I would eliminate
this. If you use it, you need to explain what low-risk populations are (low-risk patients for an
inadequate preparation).
Discussion
"Although the adequate bowel cleaning rate showed no significant difference between the two
groups, the PICO group achieved a better performance in the BBPS scores of the total[(6.90 ±
1.19) vs. (6.81 ± 1.14), P=0.016] and the right colon[(2.15 ± 0.53) vs. (2.11 ± 0.51), P=0.005]. "
Repetitive and you are not using statistically significant.
Suggest:
" the PICO group  had statistically significantly better BBPS total scores (6.90 ± 1.19) vs. (6.81
± 1.14), P=0.016] and the  right segment scores[(2.15 ± 0.53) vs. (2.11 ± 0.51), P=0.005]."
You need to write out the first reference to ESGE "European Society of Gastrointestinal
Endoscopy "
Line 256 - what do yo mean by "a better trend " was it statistically significant? If not you should
not include it or state it was a non statistically significant finding but supported your findings.
Figure 1 - I would list
Failure to complete colonoscopy (give #)
Absence of BBPS scores (give #)
Previous Colon Resection (give #).
How is 32 patients were excluded due to inclompete information different than missing BBPS?
Maybe you can clarify that.
Table 1
"Recheck" needs to be clarified (? history of adenomatous polyps or cancer)
"Other is a very high number" - what is this? Usually other is a small number.
Table 2
Final Comment: Your paper has come a long way since the first draft and you should be proud
of its evolution.
I have recommended it be accepted but I would make the minor changes above (mostly to shorten
it) but also to clarify some areas.
assistant