Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02751-1 (2023)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Effect of acuity level and patient characteristics on bowel preparation
quality: a retrospective cohort study of inpatient colonoscopies
Version: 
1 
Date: 
10 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a
testable research question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear
objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols)
appropriate for the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor
to allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results
reasonable and not overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work
technically sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically
sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: The research topic is interesting and important. It
collects the correct data and the methods are valid. However, the paper should be
reworked to improve the flow and readability of the results. 
In general, the results are difficult to follow. There are observations made but no
link to tables or figures. The order in which the results are given means the
reader has to keep jumping around between tables.
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
The research topic is interesting and important. It collects the correct data and the
methods are valid. However, the paper should be reworked to improve the flow
and readability of the results. 
In general, the results are difficult to follow. There are observations made but no
link to tables or figures. The order in which the results are given means the
reader has to keep jumping around between tables. 
* Line 37: For the statement 'Of 538 patients undergoing colonoscopy, 47.5%
were admitted into TU' - I make it 47.4%?
* Abstract contains only 1 finding, it should cover the findings more
comprehensively. 
* Methods - there is no indication of where the trauma centre was - which
country or which area. Is it rural/urban etc. 
* Methods - statistical analyses: there are a lot of tests mentioned in the methods
section but it's not clear in the tables which test is used for which comparison. 
* Line 181: An example of results given but unclear where this data is in the
tables is in the following sentence: 'and anemia or blood loss was not 182
associated with BPQ.' - where is this shown in table?
* Line 183: As above, the sentence: 'Among covariates, previous history of
constipation and laxative use, history of opioid use, and male gender were
identified as independent predictors of inadequate bowel preparation quality. -
where is this data?
* Line 200: 'History of opioid use remained associated with lower likelihood of
adequate preparation 201 after adjustment (OR 0.49; 95%CI 0.26, 0.91).' - this
result is already given earlier on line 189.
* P values are given throughout the text but they are not found in the tables?
* Table 1: no units given for age, BMI
* Table 1: need clearer definition of 'Medications' - are these percentages for
ever use or regular use - needs a superscript with a definition in the footnote. 
* Tables give OR and 95% CI to 3 decimal places - shorten to 2 as is more
standard and matches what is given in the text.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: 
see previous text
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
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 your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square.
Reviewers with declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for
these reviews. This reviewer has agreed to publication of their comments online
under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to Research Square
and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within a specified
timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer
recommendation.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
Web of Science Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification
of this review directly to a Web of Science researcher profile (a subsidiary of
Clarivate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, please
click on the “Yes” option below. Your name, email address, title of the reviewed
manuscript, name of the journal, and date of your review submission (the
“Review Data”) will then be transmitted to Web of Science after the final
decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have already registered with
Web of Science for a 
Web of Science researcher profile (this service was
previously known as “Publons”), they will notify you of the receipt of this
review and update your profile as per your settings and their policy. If you are
not registered with Web of Science, you will receive an email from them asking
you to register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Web of Science may use the Review Data to generate derivative
metadata for the benefit of Web of Science and you as a reviewer, carefully
considering the sensitivity of such information. For example, Web of Science
may verify your record as a reviewer by updating your profile published on its
webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors to identify
candidate reviewers. Please find the details of processing in Web of Science’s
privacy policy 
https://clarivate.com/privacy-center/notices-policies/privacy-
policy/
No