Review for 10.1186/s12876-019-1081-2 (2019)

Reviewer’s report
Title: Risk factors for peritonitis in patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis who undergo
colonoscopy: A retrospective multicentre study
Version: 0 Date: 18 Aug 2019
Reviewer: Chen Shuan Chung
Reviewer's report:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk factors for post-colonoscopy peritonitis in end stage renal
disease patients who underwent continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. It was a retrospective study
of multicenter data. Some revisions are suggested before consideration for publication in the journal
BMC Gastroenterology.
1.Is there any difference in peritonitis rate between room air vs. CO2 for colonoscopy in CAPD
patients ?
2.During colonoscopy, did all the patients retained dialysate during the procedure ?
3.Did all prophylactic antibiotic regimens the same ?
4.There was no statistically difference between CAPD patients with and without prophylactic
antibiotics before colonoscopy, probably due to insufficient case number, even in subgroup
analysis  of  patients  who  underwent  polypectomy  or  EMR.  Based  on  these  findings,  the
conclusive description "Prophylactic antibiotics should be administered before colonoscopy to
such patients." is not appropriate. Instead, randomized controlled trials to investigate whether
prophylactic antibiotics are needed to prevent peritonitis in all CAPD patients are warranted.
5.How  about  the difference in  prophylactic  intravenous  vs. intraperitoneal  antibiotics  before
colonoscopy ? Is there any evidence to answer this question ?
 
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 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?
1.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?
4.Do you have any other financial competing interests?
5.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 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 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 comments
which I do not wish 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