Review for 10.1186/s12876-019-1134-6 (2019)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Validation of Serrated Polyps (SPs) in Swedish Path ology Registers  
 
Version: 0 Date: 07 Jul 2019  
 
Reviewer: Hideyuki Konishi  
 
Reviewer's report:  
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading your report as an 
attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated versions of manuscripts, graphs, 
supporting materials or other aspects of your report which cannot be in cluded in a text format.  
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.In this paper, the authors 
validated Serrated Polyps (SPs) based on computerised histopathology reports in a random 
subset of individuals through a structured, ret rospective review of histopathology reports and 
patient charts. They showed that SPs were confirmed with a histopathology reports, yielding a 
positive predictive value (PPV) of 95%, and that year of diagnosis did not influence the PPV. 
They next disclosed that, by search method, the PPV for individuals identified by SNOMED 
(Systematised Nomenclature of Medicine) codes was 100%. They concluded that colorectal 
histopathology reports were a reliable data source to identify individuals with SP. Their study 
was meaningful, but it possesses critical problems as follows. As they indicated it as limitations, 
the lack of re -examinations of actual biopsies and a diversity of pathologists might have 
contributed to their outcomes. And also, the discussion was incompeten t as a publication for this 
BMC Gastroenterology.  
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the autho rs. 
 
No 
 
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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects req uire 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:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
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, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, eithe r now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 r elating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization t hat 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing inter ests?  
 
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.  
 
I declare th at I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any at tachments 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 in cluded as confidential comme nts 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal