Review for 10.1186/s12876-018-0926-4 (2019)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Cancer ri sk in microscopic colitis: A retrospective cohort study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 05 Nov 2018 
 
Reviewer:  Reviewer  2 
 
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?  
 
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately  
 
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the curr ent interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
 
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable  
 
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Could an appropriately REVISED version of this 
work represent a technically sound contribution?  
 
Yes - current version is technically sound  
 
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: The present study aims to compare the risk of colorectal neoplasia in 
patients with microscopic colitis, as compared to a normal non -inflammed population. The study 
has bee n correctly done, and I just have a brief comment on how representative of the US 
population the SEER cohort is.  
 
The authors were careful and considered two control populations for their study, though I have 
asked them to correct the way they define one o f the cohorts since it does not really represent the 
US population as the authors claimed. The number of patients included is adequate for a study of 
such a specific pathology. The statistics used are correct, both for quantitative and qualitative 
data.  
 
Overall there is nothing I find incorrectly done, although obviously I do not know if the amount 
of work and quality is up to the level of the journal for which it is being considered.  
 
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
 
I would suggest the authors to not wr ite the SEER cohort is representative of the US population. 
On page 6 they mention the SEER cohort covers 28% of the US population, which is not even a 
third of the total inhabitants. I would suggest to explain what kind of people is included in this 
regis try (which hospitals or areas report data) and write the SEER is representative of that cohort 
only.  
 
Figure 1 would be more intuitive if represented as a pie chart (one for every type of MC) instead 
of a bar graph.  
 
Note: This reviewer report can be downl oaded - see attached pdf file.  
 
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.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
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 public ation 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 intere sts 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.  
 
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 unde r 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