Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Using a hypothetical scenario to assess public preferences for colorectal surveillance 
following screening -detected, intermediate -risk adenomas: annual home -based stool test vs. 
triennial colonoscopy  
 
 
Version: 0 Date: 28 Feb 2016  
 
 
Reviewer: A. Masclee  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
General:  
Relevant research question and aim: to explore individual 's preferences with respect to 
surveillance after colonoscopy with polyp removal , defined as "intermediate risk".  
The data are clearly presented, wel written , manuscript contains relevant  information.  
introduction : relevant, explains in detail  the BCSP.  
Methods : study was designed primarely to explore differences in people's preferences among 
four different screening methods. In addition, questions on prefenence for surveilance with 
colonoscopy vs FIT have been asked.   
 
Comments:  
1. Target population : screening naive individuals from general practices.  
With respect to age,  significantly  younger than the BCSP screening population. In addition,  
also  different with respect to emplo yment, retirement status, co morbidity, quality of life etc. 
This should be adressed.   
2. Only 16 % of the  invitees has responded: selection bias. This is mentioned in the discussion 
but no data are provided to show whether this 16% subgroup is different  ( or not) from the total 
invitees group.  
3. No detailed info on FIT (sensitivity, specificity, pos and neg predictive values) has been given 
to the individuals.Neither data on influence of repeated FIT on sens/spec.  This will have 
hampered their judgeme nt/choices  
The authors will be aware that data on the yield of FIT testing in other countries have been 
published or are available in abstract form.   
4. The aim of the present study was secondary, the major and primary item was asking about 
preference for primary screening methods. This first part may have distracted participants.  
5. The individuals asked were screening and colonoscopy naive. Questions  asked were about 
purely  hypothetical situations, far from real life situation.  
6. In the discussion the authors should anticipate on future strategies involving repeated FIT for 
surveillance.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supporte d by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please spe cify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please comp lete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from 
an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of t his 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently apply ing for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is y es to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand th at any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Using a hypothetical scenario to assess public preferences for colorectal surveillance 
following screening -detected, intermediate -risk adenomas: annual home -based stool test vs. 
triennial colonoscopy  
 
 
Version: 0 Date: 28 Feb 2016  
 
 
Reviewer: A. Masclee  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
General:  
Relevant research question and aim: to explore individual 's preferences with respect to 
surveillance after colonoscopy with polyp removal , defined as "intermediate risk".  
The data are clearly presented, wel written , manuscript contains relevant  information.  
introduction : relevant, explains in detail  the BCSP.  
Methods : study was designed primarely to explore differences in people's preferences among 
four different screening methods. In addition, questions on prefenence for surveilance with 
colonoscopy vs FIT have been asked.   
 
Comments:  
1. Target population : screening naive individuals from general practices.  
With respect to age,  significantly  younger than the BCSP screening population. In addition,  
also  different with respect to emplo yment, retirement status, co morbidity, quality of life etc. 
This should be adressed.   
2. Only 16 % of the  invitees has responded: selection bias. This is mentioned in the discussion 
but no data are provided to show whether this 16% subgroup is different  ( or not) from the total 
invitees group.  
3. No detailed info on FIT (sensitivity, specificity, pos and neg predictive values) has been given 
to the individuals.Neither data on influence of repeated FIT on sens/spec.  This will have 
hampered their judgeme nt/choices  
The authors will be aware that data on the yield of FIT testing in other countries have been 
published or are available in abstract form.   
4. The aim of the present study was secondary, the major and primary item was asking about 
preference for primary screening methods. This first part may have distracted participants.  
5. The individuals asked were screening and colonoscopy naive. Questions  asked were about 
purely  hypothetical situations, far from real life situation.  
6. In the discussion the authors should anticipate on future strategies involving repeated FIT for 
surveillance.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supporte d by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please spe cify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please comp lete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from 
an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of t his 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently apply ing for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is y es to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand th at any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Using a hypothetical scenario to assess public preferences for colorectal surveillance 
following screening -detected, intermediate -risk adenomas: annual home -based stool test vs. 
triennial colonoscopy  
 
 
Version: 0 Date: 28 Feb 2016  
 
 
Reviewer: A. Masclee  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
General:  
Relevant research question and aim: to explore individual 's preferences with respect to 
surveillance after colonoscopy with polyp removal , defined as "intermediate risk".  
The data are clearly presented, wel written , manuscript contains relevant  information.  
introduction : relevant, explains in detail  the BCSP.  
Methods : study was designed primarely to explore differences in people's preferences among 
four different screening methods. In addition, questions on prefenence for surveilance with 
colonoscopy vs FIT have been asked.   
 
Comments:  
1. Target population : screening naive individuals from general practices.  
With respect to age,  significantly  younger than the BCSP screening population. In addition,  
also  different with respect to emplo yment, retirement status, co morbidity, quality of life etc. 
This should be adressed.   
2. Only 16 % of the  invitees has responded: selection bias. This is mentioned in the discussion 
but no data are provided to show whether this 16% subgroup is different  ( or not) from the total 
invitees group.  
3. No detailed info on FIT (sensitivity, specificity, pos and neg predictive values) has been given 
to the individuals.Neither data on influence of repeated FIT on sens/spec.  This will have 
hampered their judgeme nt/choices  
The authors will be aware that data on the yield of FIT testing in other countries have been 
published or are available in abstract form.   
4. The aim of the present study was secondary, the major and primary item was asking about 
preference for primary screening methods. This first part may have distracted participants.  
5. The individuals asked were screening and colonoscopy naive. Questions  asked were about 
purely  hypothetical situations, far from real life situation.  
6. In the discussion the authors should anticipate on future strategies involving repeated FIT for 
surveillance.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supporte d by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please spe cify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please comp lete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from 
an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of t his 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently apply ing for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is y es to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand th at any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant