Review for 10.1186/s12876-018-0895-7 (2018)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: One-day Oral Polyethylene Glycol Ba sed Cleanout i s effective for Pre -colonoscopy 
Preparation in Children  
 
Version: 2 Date: 21 Jun 2018  
 
Reviewer: Lawrence Hookey  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is a large case series of Peg based colon cleansing for colonoscopy. The  authors excluded 
patients who had received stimulant laxatives in order to focus on the efficacy of pure PEG 
regimens.  
 
 
1) PEG is described in the final sentence of the abstract as a bulking agent but in the 
manuscript as an osmotic agent - the latter is correct.  
 
 
2) the exclusion of patients who received stimulant laxatives has the potential to confound 
the results, as these patients may have been more likely to have poor preparation quality, 
thus making the results in the study population rosier than rea lity. 
 
 
3) it is unfortunate the endoscopists don't use a validated bowel cleansing tool, such as the 
Ottawa scale or Boston score.  
 
 
4) as split dose bowel prep is now standard of care in adults, can the authors comment on 
why it is not used in this populati on. Anesthesia concerns shouldn't prevent its use.  
 
 
5) were these all outpatients? Please clarify in manuscript unless I missed it.  
 
 
6) if inpatients, were IV fluids administered?  
 
 
 
 
 
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.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
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 as sess 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 quality 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, f ees, funding, or salary 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 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 recei ved 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 have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer r eview policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report 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 made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any c omments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included a s confidential comments 
to the editor s, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal