Review for 10.1186/s12876-021-01605-y (2021)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Patient experience with NER1006 as a bowel preparation for colonoscopy:
a prospective, multicenter US survey
Version: 
1 
Date: 
01 Aug 2020
Reviewer's report:
This is a prospective multicenter US survey aimed at evaluating real-world ease
of use and treatment satisfaction in individuals who received NER1006
The topic is interesting given the relevance of a good preparation in being able to
provide a quality colonoscopy, especially but not only in CRC prevention
Programs.
The paper flows well, being really clear in the presentation of the contents.
Moreover, some major and minor comments need to be made on the study:
- first of all, my concern is about the need to pay the patients who responded to
the survey. Certainly in this way it is easier to enroll subjects, but the fear is that
the compensation may induce patients to be more positive in their judgments.
How much was the compensation? Did health care providers also receive
compensation?
- coming to the methods and results, my questions are:
. The Author entitled the study "a multicenter survey", but in the first row of the
Methods they reported that patients were recruited from those who were
scheduled for a colonoscopy in a community gastroenterology practice. Can they
explain better this point please?
. In the 1-day split-dose regimen, how many hours before the procedure the first
dose of NER 1006 was recommended (it is not clear in the text and should be
reported)?
. 
it seems that grading scales created by the authors were used to evaluate the
outcomes. it's correct? if yes, why didn't Authors choose already existing and
validated grading scales? And why did they create a nine point grading scales if
then the results have been grouped into 3 classifications?
. Authors referred that "most patients reported consuming all or most of the
bowel preparation". "All or most" is too generic. Looking at table 2 it can be
deduced that "most" includes subjects who have taken 99% as well as 51% of
NER 1006. These two extremes cannot be placed in the same group, there being
a substantial difference. If the data is available, this point should be defined in
more detail, perhaps with a numerical scale.
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (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 Publons upon publication of the manuscript. If you have already registered at
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 Publons, 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. Publons may use the
Review Data to generate derivative metadata for the benefit of Publons and you
as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensitivity of such information. For
example, Publons 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
Publons’ privacy policy 
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
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.
No competing interests
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?
Yes
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