Reviewer's report
Title:A randomised controlled trial of structured nurse-led outpatient clinic
follow-up for dyspeptic patients after direct access gastroscopy.
Version: 1Date:30 July 2008
Reviewer: Christine Norton
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-written and planned study. However, the following issues need to
be addressed:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Table 1 and text: need to report if there were any significant difference
between groups at baseline (p values). It is not legitimate to sum the scores of
teh SF12. How many units qualified as "a drinker"? Not clear how UHD costs
were calculated - make this explicit in text.
2. Table 2: make it explicit how the adjustment for baseline was made.
3. How many visits did the intervention involve. Approximate cost of the
intervention? How many investigations were ordered by the nurse (and what
were the criteria for "if required". What was the cost and what did the tests find
(ie were there many positive or negative tests ordered?).
4. Explain more about the pilot stdy and what it found as the basis for the sample
size calculation
5. Costs of UHDs: was this patient self report recall? is it legitimate to average
across classes? Months UHDs used: this is also recall, is this prescribed or
actually used. Did use need to be continuous and how was PRN medication use
handled?
6. How many patinets were approached to participate (it is hard to believe that
100% consented?)
7. page 6: paragraph 2: make it clear that this is patient report of what they
recalled at telephone interview at 6 months: it is not possible to state that they did
or did not have information, just that they recalled
8. Patterns of drug use page 7: need to make the primary comparison between
the 2 groups at follow up. Can also report before-after changes separately for
both groups.
9. Was there any suggestion of a difference between those who did/did not
attend GP follow up?
Minor Essential Revisions
1. page 2: NICE is "of" not in
2. page 3: meaning of concordance finalised?
3. Make it clear that Gladys score increase = worsened symptoms?
4. reference 29 incomplete?
Discretionary Revisions
1. Tables 3 & 4 has too much detail - could summarise
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:A randomised controlled trial of structured nurse-led outpatient clinic
follow-up for dyspeptic patients after direct access gastroscopy.
Version: 1Date:30 July 2008
Reviewer: Christine Norton
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-written and planned study. However, the following issues need to
be addressed:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Table 1 and text: need to report if there were any significant difference
between groups at baseline (p values). It is not legitimate to sum the scores of
teh SF12. How many units qualified as "a drinker"? Not clear how UHD costs
were calculated - make this explicit in text.
2. Table 2: make it explicit how the adjustment for baseline was made.
3. How many visits did the intervention involve. Approximate cost of the
intervention? How many investigations were ordered by the nurse (and what
were the criteria for "if required". What was the cost and what did the tests find
(ie were there many positive or negative tests ordered?).
4. Explain more about the pilot stdy and what it found as the basis for the sample
size calculation
5. Costs of UHDs: was this patient self report recall? is it legitimate to average
across classes? Months UHDs used: this is also recall, is this prescribed or
actually used. Did use need to be continuous and how was PRN medication use
handled?
6. How many patinets were approached to participate (it is hard to believe that
100% consented?)
7. page 6: paragraph 2: make it clear that this is patient report of what they
recalled at telephone interview at 6 months: it is not possible to state that they did
or did not have information, just that they recalled
8. Patterns of drug use page 7: need to make the primary comparison between
the 2 groups at follow up. Can also report before-after changes separately for
both groups.
9. Was there any suggestion of a difference between those who did/did not
attend GP follow up?
Minor Essential Revisions
1. page 2: NICE is "of" not in
2. page 3: meaning of concordance finalised?
3. Make it clear that Gladys score increase = worsened symptoms?
4. reference 29 incomplete?
Discretionary Revisions
1. Tables 3 & 4 has too much detail - could summarise
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:A randomised controlled trial of structured nurse-led outpatient clinic
follow-up for dyspeptic patients after direct access gastroscopy.
Version: 1Date:30 July 2008
Reviewer: Christine Norton
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-written and planned study. However, the following issues need to
be addressed:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Table 1 and text: need to report if there were any significant difference
between groups at baseline (p values). It is not legitimate to sum the scores of
teh SF12. How many units qualified as "a drinker"? Not clear how UHD costs
were calculated - make this explicit in text.
2. Table 2: make it explicit how the adjustment for baseline was made.
3. How many visits did the intervention involve. Approximate cost of the
intervention? How many investigations were ordered by the nurse (and what
were the criteria for "if required". What was the cost and what did the tests find
(ie were there many positive or negative tests ordered?).
4. Explain more about the pilot stdy and what it found as the basis for the sample
size calculation
5. Costs of UHDs: was this patient self report recall? is it legitimate to average
across classes? Months UHDs used: this is also recall, is this prescribed or
actually used. Did use need to be continuous and how was PRN medication use
handled?
6. How many patinets were approached to participate (it is hard to believe that
100% consented?)
7. page 6: paragraph 2: make it clear that this is patient report of what they
recalled at telephone interview at 6 months: it is not possible to state that they did
or did not have information, just that they recalled
8. Patterns of drug use page 7: need to make the primary comparison between
the 2 groups at follow up. Can also report before-after changes separately for
both groups.
9. Was there any suggestion of a difference between those who did/did not
attend GP follow up?
Minor Essential Revisions
1. page 2: NICE is "of" not in
2. page 3: meaning of concordance finalised?
3. Make it clear that Gladys score increase = worsened symptoms?
4. reference 29 incomplete?
Discretionary Revisions
1. Tables 3 & 4 has too much detail - could summarise
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant