Comparing Colonoscopy Quality Indicators between Surgeons and Gastroenterologists in A Rural Healthcare System

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for

researchers?

Comments: Based on the provided manuscript, the topic appears to be relevant to the journal area of interest.

This is a contemporary and interesting topic for researchers, as it discusses the quality of colonoscopies performed by different specialties and the implications for preventative healthcare in rural settings.

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

Comments: Yes, all required components are included in the abstract. The abstract provides a clear background and introduction to the topic, outlines the methods used in the study, presents the results obtained, discusses the implications of the findings, and concludes with a statement summarizing the main result.

The keywords used, including "adenoma detection rate," "colonoscopy," "colorectal cancer," "endoscopy," "gastroenterologists," "preventative healthcare," "rural health," and "surgeons," are all relevant to the study and help identify the main focus of the research.

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

Comments: The goal of the study is not explicitly stated in the Introduction. While the Introduction provides background information on the shortage of physicians providing colonoscopies and the potential role of surgeons in filling this gap, it does not clearly state the specific goal or objective of the study. The formulation of the goal is not clear and unambiguous in this section.

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

Comments: The paper's structure is generally coherent and follows a logical progression from the introduction to the methods, results, and discussion sections. It provides relevant background information on the shortage of physicians providing colonoscopies, discusses the importance of colonoscopy as a screening tool for colorectal cancer, and highlights the need to compare colonoscopy quality measures between surgeons and gastroenterologists.

Tools and Methods

Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?

Comments: The methods used in the study are generally adequate and well-described. The authors provide information about the sample size, including the number of colonoscopies performed by surgeons and gastroenterologists within a specific time frame. They mention the inclusion criteria for the colonoscopies, such as diagnostic, screening, and surveillance colonoscopies, while excluding emergent colonoscopies.

The study measures relevant quality indicators for colonoscopies, including withdrawal times and adenoma detection rates. They describe how withdrawal times were recorded using the electronic medical record system and how adenoma detection rates were calculated based on pathology reports. The statistical analyses, including chi-squared testing and t-test adjusted for clustering by physician, are appropriate for comparing the quality metrics between surgeons and gastroenterologists.

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

Comments: The discussion section of the paper is related to the results presented earlier, as it primarily focuses on interpreting and discussing the findings in relation to the research question. The authors compare the adenoma detection rates and withdrawal times between surgeons and gastroenterologists, and they discuss the implications of these findings.

In terms of coherence, the discussion section does provide an analysis and interpretation of the results in relation to the research question. The authors acknowledge that there have been previous studies suggesting differences in adenoma detection rates between surgeons and gastroenterologists, but they highlight that their study did not find a statistically significant difference in adenoma detection rates or withdrawal times between the two groups.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

Comments: The author does reference relevant literature in the Introduction and the Discussion sections to provide context and support their arguments. They mention the significance of colonoscopy as the gold standard for CRC screening and its impact on reducing CRC incidence rates. They also cite previous studies that have examined the quality of colonoscopies performed by different specialties.

Length

Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

Comments: The length of the paper appears to be appropriate for the significance of the topic being discussed. It provides a comprehensive overview of the research question, methods, results, and discussion. The introduction provides relevant background information on colorectal cancer, the importance of colonoscopy screening, and the shortage of physicians in rural areas. The methods section outlines the study design and data collection process in sufficient detail. The results are presented clearly, with relevant statistics, and the discussion provides an analysis and interpretation of the findings, comparing them to previous studies.

Shortening the paper significantly may risk losing important details or compromising the overall coherence.

Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: Based on the provided excerpt, it appears that the author uses relevant literature suitably to support the background and discussion of the study. The introduction cites statistics on colorectal cancer incidence and the role of colonoscopy in screening. The author also references previous studies that have examined the quality of colonoscopies performed by different provider specialties.

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Based on the provided excerpt, the writing style seems to be clear and understandable. The author presents the information in a logical and organized manner, with clear headings and subheadings. The sentences are generally well-structured, and the content is presented in a concise and informative manner.

Further comments on the paper

Comments:

The manuscript titled "Comparing Colonoscopy Quality Indicators between Surgeons and Gastroenterologists in a Rural Healthcare System" provides an evaluation of colonoscopy quality measures between surgeons and gastroenterologists in a rural healthcare setting. Here are some further comments on the paper:

1.     Strengths:

The study addresses an important issue of the shortage of physicians providing colonoscopy services in rural areas.

The manuscript provides specific details about the methodology, including the inclusion criteria, sample size, and statistical analysis methods.

The study compares relevant quality indicators such as adenoma detection rates and withdrawal times, which are important measures for assessing colonoscopy performance.

2.     Limitations and suggestions for improvement:

The sample size is relatively small with 23 endoscopists, and there is significant variance in the number of colonoscopies performed by surgeons. Consider expanding the sample size to increase the statistical power and provide more robust results.

3.     Clarity and organization:

The manuscript is generally well-written and organized, with clear sections for the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion.

The abstract provides a concise summary of the study objectives, methods, and key findings. The methods section includes sufficient details about the study design, data collection, and statistical analysis.

The results section presents the key findings using appropriate tables and describes the comparison between surgeons and gastroenterologists.

The discussion section provides a brief overview of previous research but could benefit from a more in-depth analysis and interpretation of the study results.

4.     Overall recommendation:

Based on the provided information, the manuscript seems to be a valuable contribution to the field, addressing an important topic in a specific healthcare setting.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes- This manuscript is recommended for further publication.

If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team