Review for 10.1186/s12876-021-01715-7 (2021)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Very-Low-Dose Aspirin and Surveillance Colonoscopy is Cost-effective
in Secondary Prevention of Colorectal Cancer in Individuals with Advanced
Adenomas: Network Meta-analysis and Cost-effectiveness Analysis
Version: 
0 
Date: 
18 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
First of all, congratulations for your article, it is quite visible the work you had
with it.
Nevertheless, there are some suggestions I would like you to consider. 
- You wrote always "chemo-preventive" and it should be "chemopreventive"
- In the abstract, I would add 2 commas in this sentence: "We aimed to
determine, firstly, the most suitable CPA using network meta-analysis (NMA)
and, secondly, cost-effectiveness of CPA with or without surveillance
colonoscopy (SC)."
- In the list of abbreviations you should correct: "ASALD = aspirin at very-low-
dose" to "ASALD = aspirin at low-dose"; CPA as noted before; and remove the
comma here: "TSA = trial sequential analysis,"
- In Introduction I would remake the sentences of lines 3 and 4: "and from the
most recent data from the national cancer registry indicate that CRC is now the
second most common cancer and the commonest among males; correct "pre-
malignant" for "premalignant"; you should correct and simplify the definition of
ACA - just say it is necessary to have a 1cm or more and/or villous component
and/or high-grade dysplasia (remove the intramucosal invasion); in line 5 of the
2nd paragraph, please write "fulfill" instead of "fulfilled" and in line 11
"systematic" instead of "systemic"; in the 3rd paragraph, in the limitations of
colonoscopy, I would add "possible complications" and substitute "maybe" by
"alternatively"; in the 4th paragraph I would say "For the last 2 objectives"
instead of "For objectives two and three" and "using" instead of "utilizing"
- In "Methods" you say again "systemic" instead of "systematic" in line 1.
- In "Results" you say that: ""our model predicted a reduction in new cases of
CRC by 14%, 23%, and 72% for ASAVLD, 3-yearly SC, and combination
strategy, respectively, compared to no surveillance" - how do you explain this
huge difference between 3-yearly-SC and combination strategy? Is there a
synergistic effect? 
- In "Discussion" the last part of this sentence is not clear: "e.g., 6.4% vs. 5.5%
[55]) 2) the duration of surveillance colonoscopy was up to 75 years [13] in our
model rather than lifetime [55, 57] or intermittent 52 in others, and 3" and it
lacks a comma after, to continue the long sentence; there is also a comma
missing here: "which, in our opinion,"; please correct also this: "The National
Polyp Study has suggested has that SC should prevent"; there is something
missing here to make sense: "However, individuals from countries without
colonoscopy screening programs but have been identified at increased risk"
- I think table 1 is too exhaustive, is there a way of simplifying it? 
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 after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. 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