Title: Assessment of the Impact of Power Business Intelligence on Adenoma Detection Rate:
A Prospective Observational Trial
Version: 2 Date: 02 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
I would like to congratulate authors for the well planned study. I have several comments:
Major
1. It is not precisely written if operators received institutional data or individual performance.
It needs to be clarified.
2. The operators have access to the data or it was presented to them on the meetings? Were there
able to see data presented on figure 1 or all mentioned in methods section? Precise intervention
information (ability to see some data vs standardized feedback continuously presented/ ADR
data vs all metrics data) must be included in the methods section.
3. In the results section BBPS threshold was presented as “>6” – how it was selected? The
usually used threshold is equal or higher that 6.
4. Same with the BMI it is mentioned that at least of 25 it is overweight but then 24 as threshold
is used in the regression analysis.
5. The improved ADR of worst performing operator is one of crucial information. It I demanded
to achieve improvement of operators who have ADR <26% [1] - it should be discussed.
1.Pilonis ND, Spychalski P, Kalager M, Løberg M, Wieszczy P, Didkowska J, Wojciechowska
U, Kobiela J, Regula J, Rösch T, Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF. Adenoma Detection Rates by
Physicians and Subsequent Colorectal Cancer Risk. JAMA. 2025 Feb 4;333(5):400-407. doi:
10.1001/jama.2024.22975. PMID: 39680377; PMCID: PMC11795324.
Minor.
1. In introduction term „interval cancer” was used, it should be changed for “post-colonoscopy
colorectal cancer” with adequate definitions and references.
2.  Introduction “techniques, and endosocpi devices” – misspelling.
3. How withdrawal time was measured and assessed? It needs to be defined in methods section.
4. „After adjusting for confounding factors, multivariate analysis revealed no association
between Power BI usage and adeoma detections. Adeoma detections” – misspelling.
5. „These outcomes illustrate the challenges of feedabck from generalized reporting systems in
driving performance improvements.” – misspelling.
6. „This could mean that either the quality of endoscopy was already high, or the Powe BI can’t
change the behabior.” – misspelling.
7. „In contrast to the above patient factos, the modiferable technique facts were more imporatnat
because it could provide by the health care give” – misspelling.
8. „Adequate withdrawal time allows colonoscopists to perform careful and detailed inspection
of the colon” – misspelling.
Title: Assessment of the Impact of Power Business Intelligence on Adenoma Detection Rate:
A Prospective Observational Trial
Version: 2 Date: 02 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
I would like to congratulate authors for the well planned study. I have several comments:
Major
1. It is not precisely written if operators received institutional data or individual performance.
It needs to be clarified.
2. The operators have access to the data or it was presented to them on the meetings? Were there
able to see data presented on figure 1 or all mentioned in methods section? Precise intervention
information (ability to see some data vs standardized feedback continuously presented/ ADR
data vs all metrics data) must be included in the methods section.
3. In the results section BBPS threshold was presented as “>6” – how it was selected? The
usually used threshold is equal or higher that 6.
4. Same with the BMI it is mentioned that at least of 25 it is overweight but then 24 as threshold
is used in the regression analysis.
5. The improved ADR of worst performing operator is one of crucial information. It I demanded
to achieve improvement of operators who have ADR <26% [1] - it should be discussed.
1.Pilonis ND, Spychalski P, Kalager M, Løberg M, Wieszczy P, Didkowska J, Wojciechowska
U, Kobiela J, Regula J, Rösch T, Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF. Adenoma Detection Rates by
Physicians and Subsequent Colorectal Cancer Risk. JAMA. 2025 Feb 4;333(5):400-407. doi:
10.1001/jama.2024.22975. PMID: 39680377; PMCID: PMC11795324.
Minor.
1. In introduction term „interval cancer” was used, it should be changed for “post-colonoscopy
colorectal cancer” with adequate definitions and references.
2.  Introduction “techniques, and endosocpi devices” – misspelling.
3. How withdrawal time was measured and assessed? It needs to be defined in methods section.
4. „After adjusting for confounding factors, multivariate analysis revealed no association
between Power BI usage and adeoma detections. Adeoma detections” – misspelling.
5. „These outcomes illustrate the challenges of feedabck from generalized reporting systems in
driving performance improvements.” – misspelling.
6. „This could mean that either the quality of endoscopy was already high, or the Powe BI can’t
change the behabior.” – misspelling.
7. „In contrast to the above patient factos, the modiferable technique facts were more imporatnat
because it could provide by the health care give” – misspelling.
8. „Adequate withdrawal time allows colonoscopists to perform careful and detailed inspection
of the colon” – misspelling.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Assessment of the Impact of Power Business Intelligence on Adenoma Detection Rate:
A Prospective Observational Trial
Version: 2 Date: 02 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
I would like to congratulate authors for the well planned study. I have several comments:
Major
1. It is not precisely written if operators received institutional data or individual performance.
It needs to be clarified.
2. The operators have access to the data or it was presented to them on the meetings? Were there
able to see data presented on figure 1 or all mentioned in methods section? Precise intervention
information (ability to see some data vs standardized feedback continuously presented/ ADR
data vs all metrics data) must be included in the methods section.
3. In the results section BBPS threshold was presented as “>6” – how it was selected? The
usually used threshold is equal or higher that 6.
4. Same with the BMI it is mentioned that at least of 25 it is overweight but then 24 as threshold
is used in the regression analysis.
5. The improved ADR of worst performing operator is one of crucial information. It I demanded
to achieve improvement of operators who have ADR <26% [1] - it should be discussed.
1.Pilonis ND, Spychalski P, Kalager M, Løberg M, Wieszczy P, Didkowska J, Wojciechowska
U, Kobiela J, Regula J, Rösch T, Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF. Adenoma Detection Rates by
Physicians and Subsequent Colorectal Cancer Risk. JAMA. 2025 Feb 4;333(5):400-407. doi:
10.1001/jama.2024.22975. PMID: 39680377; PMCID: PMC11795324.
Minor.
1. In introduction term „interval cancer” was used, it should be changed for “post-colonoscopy
colorectal cancer” with adequate definitions and references.
2.  Introduction “techniques, and endosocpi devices” – misspelling.
3. How withdrawal time was measured and assessed? It needs to be defined in methods section.
4. „After adjusting for confounding factors, multivariate analysis revealed no association
between Power BI usage and adeoma detections. Adeoma detections” – misspelling.
5. „These outcomes illustrate the challenges of feedabck from generalized reporting systems in
driving performance improvements.” – misspelling.
6. „This could mean that either the quality of endoscopy was already high, or the Powe BI can’t
change the behabior.” – misspelling.
7. „In contrast to the above patient factos, the modiferable technique facts were more imporatnat
because it could provide by the health care give” – misspelling.
8. „Adequate withdrawal time allows colonoscopists to perform careful and detailed inspection
of the colon” – misspelling.
assistant