Reviewer's report
Title:The value of a faecal immunochemical test in colorectal cancer
surveillance: a multi-centre cohort study
Version: 3Date:7 May 2012
Reviewer: FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ MORANTA
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions:
The authors have justified all question raised. However I have doubts about my
question number 3. “Do the researchers found differences between different
hospitals in terms of lesion detection rate and on the percentage of positive
tests? “ The authors have explained differences in positivity rates between
hospitals and explain their possible causes.
However, I think that is not explained enough, the high difference in the rate of
detection of advanced neoplasia (AN) among hospitals located in a relatively
close area.
One of the hospitals performed 50% of colonoscopies and found 61% of the AN
(AN detection rate =12%). Therefore, the remaining hospitals have only a
detection rate of 8% for AN. A rate of 12% is relatively low for a high risk
population. However, a rate of 8% is similar to that obtained in screening
average-risk population (individuals over age 50 asymptomatic without personal
or family history of colorectal cancer). Racial differences are argued with lower
risk of CRC. However, this lower risk population had a higher probability of
positive test. These results may question the quality of endoscopy performed in
some of the participating centers.
I agree with the authors to justify this point involves providing many details but I
think it is worth clarifying this point because the most delicate of the study is the
low detection rate of advanced adenomas obtained with FOBT.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:The value of a faecal immunochemical test in colorectal cancer
surveillance: a multi-centre cohort study
Version: 3Date:7 May 2012
Reviewer: FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ MORANTA
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions:
The authors have justified all question raised. However I have doubts about my
question number 3. “Do the researchers found differences between different
hospitals in terms of lesion detection rate and on the percentage of positive
tests? “ The authors have explained differences in positivity rates between
hospitals and explain their possible causes.
However, I think that is not explained enough, the high difference in the rate of
detection of advanced neoplasia (AN) among hospitals located in a relatively
close area.
One of the hospitals performed 50% of colonoscopies and found 61% of the AN
(AN detection rate =12%). Therefore, the remaining hospitals have only a
detection rate of 8% for AN. A rate of 12% is relatively low for a high risk
population. However, a rate of 8% is similar to that obtained in screening
average-risk population (individuals over age 50 asymptomatic without personal
or family history of colorectal cancer). Racial differences are argued with lower
risk of CRC. However, this lower risk population had a higher probability of
positive test. These results may question the quality of endoscopy performed in
some of the participating centers.
I agree with the authors to justify this point involves providing many details but I
think it is worth clarifying this point because the most delicate of the study is the
low detection rate of advanced adenomas obtained with FOBT.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:The value of a faecal immunochemical test in colorectal cancer
surveillance: a multi-centre cohort study
Version: 3Date:7 May 2012
Reviewer: FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ MORANTA
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions:
The authors have justified all question raised. However I have doubts about my
question number 3. “Do the researchers found differences between different
hospitals in terms of lesion detection rate and on the percentage of positive
tests? “ The authors have explained differences in positivity rates between
hospitals and explain their possible causes.
However, I think that is not explained enough, the high difference in the rate of
detection of advanced neoplasia (AN) among hospitals located in a relatively
close area.
One of the hospitals performed 50% of colonoscopies and found 61% of the AN
(AN detection rate =12%). Therefore, the remaining hospitals have only a
detection rate of 8% for AN. A rate of 12% is relatively low for a high risk
population. However, a rate of 8% is similar to that obtained in screening
average-risk population (individuals over age 50 asymptomatic without personal
or family history of colorectal cancer). Racial differences are argued with lower
risk of CRC. However, this lower risk population had a higher probability of
positive test. These results may question the quality of endoscopy performed in
some of the participating centers.
I agree with the authors to justify this point involves providing many details but I
think it is worth clarifying this point because the most delicate of the study is the
low detection rate of advanced adenomas obtained with FOBT.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant