Review for 10.1186/s12876-016-0476-6 (2016)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: A randomized controlled trial of an educational video to improve quality o f bowel 
preparation for colonoscopy  
 
 
Version: 0 Date: 04 Jan 2016  
 
 
Reviewer: David  Wang  
 
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Comments for Authors  
 
In this interesting manuscript, the authors performed a randomized controlled and prospective 
study with or without a video education to improve quality of bowel preparation for 
colonoscopy.  They found that the video group exhibited better bowel preparation than the non -
video group and had good bowel preparation for colonoscopy. They concluded that the addition 
of an educational video significantly improved the quality of bowel preparation.  
 
 
Major comments:  
 
Although high -quality bowel preparation is essential for a successful colonoscopy, it is the 
responsibility of medical staff to teach patients how to do it through a simple, concise and 
understandable approach. This reviewer believes that many other methods could get the same 
results in addition a video education. However, the authors tested only the video education. 
Actually, many factors could influence bowel preparation from both sides of medical staff and 
patients, as recognized by the authors. The current study described in this paper contained many 
subjective, but not objective factors, which made the results unbelievable. Moreover, the effect 
of the video education alone on high -quality bowel preparation could be limited.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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 spec ify 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, 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 you r reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interes ts 
 
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 n amed 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 i ncluded as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal