Reviewer's report
Title:Narrow-band imaging does not improve detection of colorectal polyps
when compared to conventional colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial and
meta-analysis of published studies.
Version: 3Date:15 July 2010
Reviewer: Han-Mo Mo Chiu
Reviewer's report:
This study aim to compare the efficacy of conventional colonoscopy and NBI in
terms of adenoma detection rate and total number of polyp/adenoma detected.
Here are my review comments:
Major
1. It is curious for me why the author report the result of RCT and meta-analysis
in the same study though it is not unacceptable. Moreover, the results of
meta-analysis is not very different from that by van den Broek that published in
GIE previously therefore the author can explain the specific purpose of adding
this part in their work or conducting this meta-analysis. (for example, newly
published well-designed studies were included in this analysis, etc.. )
2. The methodology was well conducted and generally acceptable in terms of
study design and statistics. The only point that the author should clarify is
whether they use chromoendoscopy (ie. Indigocarmine dye-spraying) or not
during the process of conventional colonoscopy observation because this may
partially increase the possibility of detecting more lesions
3. Regarding the discussion, the author can further discuss some important
issues in depth. For example: 1) the darkness of current NBI system may
counteract its advantage for detecting neoplasms and thus new technology (or
new generation NBI) is anticipated, 2) impact of colon preparation on this study
and also on other reviewed studies, 3) flat or non-polypoid type neoplasm issues,
4) impact of different endoscopic system: some of the reviewed studies was
conducted using Lucera whereas some with Exera endoscopic system. This may
also impact on the diversity of results that observed in different studies.
4. In the discussion section, the author should also highlight what they add to the
already known knowledge in this field by this study.
Minor
1. Adler was misspelled as Addler in the tables and figures. Please correct.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Reviewer's report
Title:Narrow-band imaging does not improve detection of colorectal polyps
when compared to conventional colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial and
meta-analysis of published studies.
Version: 3Date:15 July 2010
Reviewer: Han-Mo Mo Chiu
Reviewer's report:
This study aim to compare the efficacy of conventional colonoscopy and NBI in
terms of adenoma detection rate and total number of polyp/adenoma detected.
Here are my review comments:
Major
1. It is curious for me why the author report the result of RCT and meta-analysis
in the same study though it is not unacceptable. Moreover, the results of
meta-analysis is not very different from that by van den Broek that published in
GIE previously therefore the author can explain the specific purpose of adding
this part in their work or conducting this meta-analysis. (for example, newly
published well-designed studies were included in this analysis, etc.. )
2. The methodology was well conducted and generally acceptable in terms of
study design and statistics. The only point that the author should clarify is
whether they use chromoendoscopy (ie. Indigocarmine dye-spraying) or not
during the process of conventional colonoscopy observation because this may
partially increase the possibility of detecting more lesions
3. Regarding the discussion, the author can further discuss some important
issues in depth. For example: 1) the darkness of current NBI system may
counteract its advantage for detecting neoplasms and thus new technology (or
new generation NBI) is anticipated, 2) impact of colon preparation on this study
and also on other reviewed studies, 3) flat or non-polypoid type neoplasm issues,
4) impact of different endoscopic system: some of the reviewed studies was
conducted using Lucera whereas some with Exera endoscopic system. This may
also impact on the diversity of results that observed in different studies.
4. In the discussion section, the author should also highlight what they add to the
already known knowledge in this field by this study.
Minor
1. Adler was misspelled as Addler in the tables and figures. Please correct.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Narrow-band imaging does not improve detection of colorectal polyps
when compared to conventional colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial and
meta-analysis of published studies.
Version: 3Date:15 July 2010
Reviewer: Han-Mo Mo Chiu
Reviewer's report:
This study aim to compare the efficacy of conventional colonoscopy and NBI in
terms of adenoma detection rate and total number of polyp/adenoma detected.
Here are my review comments:
Major
1. It is curious for me why the author report the result of RCT and meta-analysis
in the same study though it is not unacceptable. Moreover, the results of
meta-analysis is not very different from that by van den Broek that published in
GIE previously therefore the author can explain the specific purpose of adding
this part in their work or conducting this meta-analysis. (for example, newly
published well-designed studies were included in this analysis, etc.. )
2. The methodology was well conducted and generally acceptable in terms of
study design and statistics. The only point that the author should clarify is
whether they use chromoendoscopy (ie. Indigocarmine dye-spraying) or not
during the process of conventional colonoscopy observation because this may
partially increase the possibility of detecting more lesions
3. Regarding the discussion, the author can further discuss some important
issues in depth. For example: 1) the darkness of current NBI system may
counteract its advantage for detecting neoplasms and thus new technology (or
new generation NBI) is anticipated, 2) impact of colon preparation on this study
and also on other reviewed studies, 3) flat or non-polypoid type neoplasm issues,
4) impact of different endoscopic system: some of the reviewed studies was
conducted using Lucera whereas some with Exera endoscopic system. This may
also impact on the diversity of results that observed in different studies.
4. In the discussion section, the author should also highlight what they add to the
already known knowledge in this field by this study.
Minor
1. Adler was misspelled as Addler in the tables and figures. Please correct.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
assistant