Title: Prospective, randomized study comparing two different regimens of split-dose
polyethylene glycol and their effect on endoscopic outcomes
Version: 1 Date: 22 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
An intriguing question of whether altering the proportion of volume of PEG in a split dose
regimen affects quality of colon cleansing
Introduction
The opening paragraph has a spelling error (endoscopic) and needs references for the last
sentence. The reference for the challenges of colon cleansing (reference 3) isn’t appropriate, as
it is just another RCT and not a review or an overview of the challenges.
I don’t understand why there is a large section on sodium picosulfate when that agent isn’t
studies at all in this paper. PEG-ELS is used by enough people that I don’t think we need a
section talking about a low volume alternative, if that alternative isn’t studied in this paper.
“surfing” the literature is not a scientific term.
Methods:
1) It appears the authors randomized the patients themselves, not an independent research
assistant?
2) Is there a power calculation for sample size?
3) We need a CONSORT diagram for an RCT
4) Were the investigators blinded to treatment assignment, if so, how if they also did the
assigning?
Results:
1) If it was an RCT, why are the final numbers different by 10?
2) The differences in tolerance are interesting, can you give more details on the person
administering the questionnaire?
3) Table one should be split up- patient demographics, then  a table for tolerance, then a table
on procedure results
Title: Prospective, randomized study comparing two different regimens of split-dose
polyethylene glycol and their effect on endoscopic outcomes
Version: 1 Date: 22 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
An intriguing question of whether altering the proportion of volume of PEG in a split dose
regimen affects quality of colon cleansing
Introduction
The opening paragraph has a spelling error (endoscopic) and needs references for the last
sentence. The reference for the challenges of colon cleansing (reference 3) isn’t appropriate, as
it is just another RCT and not a review or an overview of the challenges.
I don’t understand why there is a large section on sodium picosulfate when that agent isn’t
studies at all in this paper. PEG-ELS is used by enough people that I don’t think we need a
section talking about a low volume alternative, if that alternative isn’t studied in this paper.
“surfing” the literature is not a scientific term.
Methods:
1) It appears the authors randomized the patients themselves, not an independent research
assistant?
2) Is there a power calculation for sample size?
3) We need a CONSORT diagram for an RCT
4) Were the investigators blinded to treatment assignment, if so, how if they also did the
assigning?
Results:
1) If it was an RCT, why are the final numbers different by 10?
2) The differences in tolerance are interesting, can you give more details on the person
administering the questionnaire?
3) Table one should be split up- patient demographics, then  a table for tolerance, then a table
on procedure results
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Prospective, randomized study comparing two different regimens of split-dose
polyethylene glycol and their effect on endoscopic outcomes
Version: 1 Date: 22 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
An intriguing question of whether altering the proportion of volume of PEG in a split dose
regimen affects quality of colon cleansing
Introduction
The opening paragraph has a spelling error (endoscopic) and needs references for the last
sentence. The reference for the challenges of colon cleansing (reference 3) isn’t appropriate, as
it is just another RCT and not a review or an overview of the challenges.
I don’t understand why there is a large section on sodium picosulfate when that agent isn’t
studies at all in this paper. PEG-ELS is used by enough people that I don’t think we need a
section talking about a low volume alternative, if that alternative isn’t studied in this paper.
“surfing” the literature is not a scientific term.
Methods:
1) It appears the authors randomized the patients themselves, not an independent research
assistant?
2) Is there a power calculation for sample size?
3) We need a CONSORT diagram for an RCT
4) Were the investigators blinded to treatment assignment, if so, how if they also did the
assigning?
Results:
1) If it was an RCT, why are the final numbers different by 10?
2) The differences in tolerance are interesting, can you give more details on the person
administering the questionnaire?
3) Table one should be split up- patient demographics, then  a table for tolerance, then a table
on procedure results
assistant