Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Addition of Lubiprostone to polyethylene glycol(PEG) enhances the quality & efficacy of 
colonoscopy preparation: A randomized, double -blind, placebo controlled trial  
 
Version: 2 Date: 08 Mar 2016  
 
Reviewer: James Tabibian  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The revised manuscript is substantially improved, and the authors' diligent revisions are much 
appreciated.  This is an important study and a meritorious addition to the literature.  A few minor 
points remain that, when considered, would furthe r enhance the manuscript:  
 
 
 
  
Abstract:  
 
-The abbreviation "LB" should be defined upon first use.  
 
 
-The last sentence of the abstract could be easier to read.  In its current form, although improved 
from prior, requires considerable knowledge of the study desi gn, abbreviations, etc.  It should be 
made more intuitive, i.e. with stand -alone significance, as previously suggested.  
 
 
 
 
Discussion:  
 
-The discussion section is still fairly onerous for the reader.  The authors have decreased the 
number of paragraphs from a pproximately 17 to 12; although improved, this is still an 
inordinately high number of paragraphs.  Improved organization, including but not limited to 
consolidation/reformatting of paragraphs composed of fewer than 3 sentences, is advisable.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work i nclude the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported 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 specify 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 complete a declaration of competing inter ests, 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 this  
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 applying 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 you r reply is yes 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 accepte d 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 a n Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.or g/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that 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: Addition of Lubiprostone to polyethylene glycol(PEG) enhances the quality & efficacy of 
colonoscopy preparation: A randomized, double -blind, placebo controlled trial  
 
Version: 2 Date: 08 Mar 2016  
 
Reviewer: James Tabibian  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The revised manuscript is substantially improved, and the authors' diligent revisions are much 
appreciated.  This is an important study and a meritorious addition to the literature.  A few minor 
points remain that, when considered, would furthe r enhance the manuscript:  
 
 
 
  
Abstract:  
 
-The abbreviation "LB" should be defined upon first use.  
 
 
-The last sentence of the abstract could be easier to read.  In its current form, although improved 
from prior, requires considerable knowledge of the study desi gn, abbreviations, etc.  It should be 
made more intuitive, i.e. with stand -alone significance, as previously suggested.  
 
 
 
 
Discussion:  
 
-The discussion section is still fairly onerous for the reader.  The authors have decreased the 
number of paragraphs from a pproximately 17 to 12; although improved, this is still an 
inordinately high number of paragraphs.  Improved organization, including but not limited to 
consolidation/reformatting of paragraphs composed of fewer than 3 sentences, is advisable.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work i nclude the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported 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 specify 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 complete a declaration of competing inter ests, 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 this  
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 applying 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 you r reply is yes 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 accepte d 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 a n Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.or g/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that 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: Addition of Lubiprostone to polyethylene glycol(PEG) enhances the quality & efficacy of 
colonoscopy preparation: A randomized, double -blind, placebo controlled trial  
 
Version: 2 Date: 08 Mar 2016  
 
Reviewer: James Tabibian  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The revised manuscript is substantially improved, and the authors' diligent revisions are much 
appreciated.  This is an important study and a meritorious addition to the literature.  A few minor 
points remain that, when considered, would furthe r enhance the manuscript:  
 
 
 
  
Abstract:  
 
-The abbreviation "LB" should be defined upon first use.  
 
 
-The last sentence of the abstract could be easier to read.  In its current form, although improved 
from prior, requires considerable knowledge of the study desi gn, abbreviations, etc.  It should be 
made more intuitive, i.e. with stand -alone significance, as previously suggested.  
 
 
 
 
Discussion:  
 
-The discussion section is still fairly onerous for the reader.  The authors have decreased the 
number of paragraphs from a pproximately 17 to 12; although improved, this is still an 
inordinately high number of paragraphs.  Improved organization, including but not limited to 
consolidation/reformatting of paragraphs composed of fewer than 3 sentences, is advisable.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work i nclude the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported 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 specify 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 complete a declaration of competing inter ests, 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 this  
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 applying 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 you r reply is yes 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 accepte d 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 a n Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.or g/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that 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