Reviewer's report 
 Persistent Demographic Differences in Colorectal Cancer Screening Utilization despite Title: 
Medicare Reimbursement 
 1  15 February 2005 Version: Date: 
 Theodore Levin Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This research has great importance for colorectal cancer screening research and policy. The finding 
of higher use of FOBT in women supports the hypothesis that FOBT screening is more attractive to 
women than men, and that the reverse is true for invasive screening (generated elsewhere: J Gen 
Intern Med. 2003 May;18(5):357-63; Prev Med. 2004 Jun;38(6):669-75). The increased use of FOBT 
in rural areas compared with colonoscopy supports the hypothesis that available screening resources is a vital predictor of colorectal cancer test use (Gastroenterology. 2004 
Dec;127(6):1841-4.). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) None. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct). 
The terms "multivariable" and "multivariate" are often used interchangeably and are both used in this paper to refer to the same thing. It is my understanding that "multivariable" refers to analyses with 
multiple predictor variables and a single outcome variable (the type described in this paper), and that 
"multivariate" refers to analyses with multiple outcome variables. This problem can be overcome by 
referring to "multiple logistic regression" to describe the analyses conducted here. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) The authors should list the following limitations to their research: 
(1) The data analysis was limited to only a single year, 2000. A lot has changed in the colorectal 
cancer screening landscape since then (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004 Jan;2(1):72-7. Gastroenterology. 2004 Dec;127(6):1661-9. Gastroenterology. 2004 Dec;127(6):1670-7.) 
(2) The data were limited to only a single state, Washington, which may be representative of the rest 
of the US in certain respects, but unique and unrepresentative in other respects. These specific 
areas should be explicitly stated. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
Research support has been received from EXACT Sciences, Enterix, Inc, and Beckman Coulter. 
Reviewer's report 
 Persistent Demographic Differences in Colorectal Cancer Screening Utilization despite Title: 
Medicare Reimbursement 
 1  15 February 2005 Version: Date: 
 Theodore Levin Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This research has great importance for colorectal cancer screening research and policy. The finding 
of higher use of FOBT in women supports the hypothesis that FOBT screening is more attractive to 
women than men, and that the reverse is true for invasive screening (generated elsewhere: J Gen 
Intern Med. 2003 May;18(5):357-63; Prev Med. 2004 Jun;38(6):669-75). The increased use of FOBT 
in rural areas compared with colonoscopy supports the hypothesis that available screening resources is a vital predictor of colorectal cancer test use (Gastroenterology. 2004 
Dec;127(6):1841-4.). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) None. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct). 
The terms "multivariable" and "multivariate" are often used interchangeably and are both used in this paper to refer to the same thing. It is my understanding that "multivariable" refers to analyses with 
multiple predictor variables and a single outcome variable (the type described in this paper), and that 
"multivariate" refers to analyses with multiple outcome variables. This problem can be overcome by 
referring to "multiple logistic regression" to describe the analyses conducted here. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) The authors should list the following limitations to their research: 
(1) The data analysis was limited to only a single year, 2000. A lot has changed in the colorectal 
cancer screening landscape since then (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004 Jan;2(1):72-7. Gastroenterology. 2004 Dec;127(6):1661-9. Gastroenterology. 2004 Dec;127(6):1670-7.) 
(2) The data were limited to only a single state, Washington, which may be representative of the rest 
of the US in certain respects, but unique and unrepresentative in other respects. These specific 
areas should be explicitly stated. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
Research support has been received from EXACT Sciences, Enterix, Inc, and Beckman Coulter. 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Persistent Demographic Differences in Colorectal Cancer Screening Utilization despite Title: 
Medicare Reimbursement 
 1  15 February 2005 Version: Date: 
 Theodore Levin Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This research has great importance for colorectal cancer screening research and policy. The finding 
of higher use of FOBT in women supports the hypothesis that FOBT screening is more attractive to 
women than men, and that the reverse is true for invasive screening (generated elsewhere: J Gen 
Intern Med. 2003 May;18(5):357-63; Prev Med. 2004 Jun;38(6):669-75). The increased use of FOBT 
in rural areas compared with colonoscopy supports the hypothesis that available screening resources is a vital predictor of colorectal cancer test use (Gastroenterology. 2004 
Dec;127(6):1841-4.). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) None. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct). 
The terms "multivariable" and "multivariate" are often used interchangeably and are both used in this paper to refer to the same thing. It is my understanding that "multivariable" refers to analyses with 
multiple predictor variables and a single outcome variable (the type described in this paper), and that 
"multivariate" refers to analyses with multiple outcome variables. This problem can be overcome by 
referring to "multiple logistic regression" to describe the analyses conducted here. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) The authors should list the following limitations to their research: 
(1) The data analysis was limited to only a single year, 2000. A lot has changed in the colorectal 
cancer screening landscape since then (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004 Jan;2(1):72-7. Gastroenterology. 2004 Dec;127(6):1661-9. Gastroenterology. 2004 Dec;127(6):1670-7.) 
(2) The data were limited to only a single state, Washington, which may be representative of the rest 
of the US in certain respects, but unique and unrepresentative in other respects. These specific 
areas should be explicitly stated. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
Research support has been received from EXACT Sciences, Enterix, Inc, and Beckman Coulter. 
assistant