Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: "Appropriateness of colonoscopy according to EPAGE II in a low resource setting : a cross 
sectional study from Sri Lanka"  
 
Version: 0 Date: 30 Jan 2018  
 
Reviewer: Adrian Cummins  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
I think most sections could be reduced in length and tightened with better editing. The title re 
yield did not seem to be well covered by this study which was more of appropriateness and 
indication. I was worried th at the measures seem to be arbitrary. Perhaps this deficiency should 
directly discussed. The Introduction is too long and most could go in a tightly written 
Discussion. I would have subheadings Methods e.g. Subjects. The legends of Tables should be 
more pr ecise. In the Discussion, a reference should not be just summarised but used to illustrate a 
specific point. In the Discussion perhaps there should be an admission that the subjects were not 
randomised but could be biased. The section on Conclusions could go in the Discussion. The 
comment on availability of data is not acceptable, a proper study would remove identifiers The 
publication list should be reviewed and made uniform e.g. sometimes the full journal title is 
given, other times a journal abbreviation  is used. Sometimes the month is inserted and most other 
times it is left out. The seniors authors need to review the manuscript before submission.  
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.  
 
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:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing i nterests, 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 t he 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 yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I h ave 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 uploa d 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 that any comments 
which I do  not w ish 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: "Appropriateness of colonoscopy according to EPAGE II in a low resource setting : a cross 
sectional study from Sri Lanka"  
 
Version: 0 Date: 30 Jan 2018  
 
Reviewer: Adrian Cummins  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
I think most sections could be reduced in length and tightened with better editing. The title re 
yield did not seem to be well covered by this study which was more of appropriateness and 
indication. I was worried th at the measures seem to be arbitrary. Perhaps this deficiency should 
directly discussed. The Introduction is too long and most could go in a tightly written 
Discussion. I would have subheadings Methods e.g. Subjects. The legends of Tables should be 
more pr ecise. In the Discussion, a reference should not be just summarised but used to illustrate a 
specific point. In the Discussion perhaps there should be an admission that the subjects were not 
randomised but could be biased. The section on Conclusions could go in the Discussion. The 
comment on availability of data is not acceptable, a proper study would remove identifiers The 
publication list should be reviewed and made uniform e.g. sometimes the full journal title is 
given, other times a journal abbreviation  is used. Sometimes the month is inserted and most other 
times it is left out. The seniors authors need to review the manuscript before submission.  
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.  
 
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:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing i nterests, 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 t he 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 yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I h ave 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 uploa d 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 that any comments 
which I do  not w ish 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: "Appropriateness of colonoscopy according to EPAGE II in a low resource setting : a cross 
sectional study from Sri Lanka"  
 
Version: 0 Date: 30 Jan 2018  
 
Reviewer: Adrian Cummins  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
I think most sections could be reduced in length and tightened with better editing. The title re 
yield did not seem to be well covered by this study which was more of appropriateness and 
indication. I was worried th at the measures seem to be arbitrary. Perhaps this deficiency should 
directly discussed. The Introduction is too long and most could go in a tightly written 
Discussion. I would have subheadings Methods e.g. Subjects. The legends of Tables should be 
more pr ecise. In the Discussion, a reference should not be just summarised but used to illustrate a 
specific point. In the Discussion perhaps there should be an admission that the subjects were not 
randomised but could be biased. The section on Conclusions could go in the Discussion. The 
comment on availability of data is not acceptable, a proper study would remove identifiers The 
publication list should be reviewed and made uniform e.g. sometimes the full journal title is 
given, other times a journal abbreviation  is used. Sometimes the month is inserted and most other 
times it is left out. The seniors authors need to review the manuscript before submission.  
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.  
 
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:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing i nterests, 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 t he 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 yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I h ave 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 uploa d 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 that any comments 
which I do  not w ish 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