Review for 10.1186/s12876-019-0979-z (2019)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: A non -randomised single centre cohort study, comparing standard  and modified bowel 
preparations, in adults with cystic fibrosis requiring colonoscopy.  
 
Version: 0 Date: 03 Jun 2018  
 
Reviewer: Shiki Fujino  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Authors reported intensive and standard bowel preparation cleanse in CF patients. Intensive 
preparation required more one day before colonoscopy than standard preparatio n. It was better 
GI cleanse and could detect more adenoma polyps. However, there are some problems. The aim 
of colonoscopy is to detect cancer and adenoma as a precancerous lesion. So that the size of 
polyps and detection of cancer including early cancer a nd/or LST tumor must be written. If the 
big polyps (>5mm) could be well detected in standard preparation, the standard preparation was 
thought to be enough. The patients with big polyps will be followed by colonoscopy as high risk 
patients. Benefit (to det ect precancerous lesions) must overcome the cost (preparation, hospital 
stay).  
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:  
 
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 shar es 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 rec eived 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 interest s 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 pee r 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 autho rs' 
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