Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Ileal intubation is not associated with higher detection r ate of right -sided conventional 
adenomas and serrated polyps compared to cecal intubation after  adjustment for overall adenoma 
detection rate  
 
Version: 0 Date: 17 Jun 2019  
 
Reviewer: Miroslaw Szura  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Continuous improvement in the quality of colonoscopic examination, expressed in ADR, PDR, 
CIT and CIR, requires research that determines the factors affecting the above indicat ors. The 
endoscopist's experience, the withdrawal times and the quality of bowel preparation for 
colonoscopy are essential. Due to the lack of data, these important parameters were not included 
in the work. It is suspected that more experienced endoscopes also had higher ADR ( &gt; 25) 
and probably they were more likely to intubate the ileum. Is all patients required intubation of 
the ileum during colonoscopy? Probably part of the endoscopists ended the examination after 
intubation of the caecum because ther e was no obligation to assess the ileum. Interesting is the 
dependence of intubation of the small intestine on the ADR level of endoscopists. The 
assessment of the quality of bowel cleansing for the exam is poor, because it refers to the entire 
colon, not to its proximal part, which is usually less well prepared.  
 
Taking into account my doubts, I believe that the research has been well carried out and the 
conclusions are correct.  
 
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 com ments 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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy 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 qua lity of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salar y 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or 
lose financially from the publicati on 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 decla re that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your 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 understan d that my name will be included 
on my repo rt to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or 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 ma de 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 wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, wh ich will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Ileal intubation is not associated with higher detection r ate of right -sided conventional 
adenomas and serrated polyps compared to cecal intubation after  adjustment for overall adenoma 
detection rate  
 
Version: 0 Date: 17 Jun 2019  
 
Reviewer: Miroslaw Szura  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Continuous improvement in the quality of colonoscopic examination, expressed in ADR, PDR, 
CIT and CIR, requires research that determines the factors affecting the above indicat ors. The 
endoscopist's experience, the withdrawal times and the quality of bowel preparation for 
colonoscopy are essential. Due to the lack of data, these important parameters were not included 
in the work. It is suspected that more experienced endoscopes also had higher ADR ( &gt; 25) 
and probably they were more likely to intubate the ileum. Is all patients required intubation of 
the ileum during colonoscopy? Probably part of the endoscopists ended the examination after 
intubation of the caecum because ther e was no obligation to assess the ileum. Interesting is the 
dependence of intubation of the small intestine on the ADR level of endoscopists. The 
assessment of the quality of bowel cleansing for the exam is poor, because it refers to the entire 
colon, not to its proximal part, which is usually less well prepared.  
 
Taking into account my doubts, I believe that the research has been well carried out and the 
conclusions are correct.  
 
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 com ments 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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy 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 qua lity of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salar y 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or 
lose financially from the publicati on 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 decla re that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your 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 understan d that my name will be included 
on my repo rt to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or 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 ma de 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 wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, wh ich will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Ileal intubation is not associated with higher detection r ate of right -sided conventional 
adenomas and serrated polyps compared to cecal intubation after  adjustment for overall adenoma 
detection rate  
 
Version: 0 Date: 17 Jun 2019  
 
Reviewer: Miroslaw Szura  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Continuous improvement in the quality of colonoscopic examination, expressed in ADR, PDR, 
CIT and CIR, requires research that determines the factors affecting the above indicat ors. The 
endoscopist's experience, the withdrawal times and the quality of bowel preparation for 
colonoscopy are essential. Due to the lack of data, these important parameters were not included 
in the work. It is suspected that more experienced endoscopes also had higher ADR ( &gt; 25) 
and probably they were more likely to intubate the ileum. Is all patients required intubation of 
the ileum during colonoscopy? Probably part of the endoscopists ended the examination after 
intubation of the caecum because ther e was no obligation to assess the ileum. Interesting is the 
dependence of intubation of the small intestine on the ADR level of endoscopists. The 
assessment of the quality of bowel cleansing for the exam is poor, because it refers to the entire 
colon, not to its proximal part, which is usually less well prepared.  
 
Taking into account my doubts, I believe that the research has been well carried out and the 
conclusions are correct.  
 
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 com ments 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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy 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 qua lity of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salar y 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or 
lose financially from the publicati on 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 decla re that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your 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 understan d that my name will be included 
on my repo rt to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or 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 ma de 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 wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, wh ich will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant