Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Twenty -five years of advocacy for patients with gastroparesis: support group therapy and  
patient reported outcome tool development  
 
Version: 0 Date: 19 Dec 2015  
 
Reviewer: Tiberiu Hershcovici  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is an interesting ma nuscript concluding the experience of the authors  in using support group 
therapy in patients with gastroparesis. The patient reported outcome tool presented can be used 
in the future to assess QoL of these patients.  
 
 
Major comments:  
 
1. The Results are not c learly presented.  
 
First, the raw data (scores on each of the scales assessed) are not presentedonly.  
 
Second, only positive correlations are presented.  
 
Third, the presentation is "narrative" and not "structured" as usually required.  
 
Fourth, in the last pa ragrahs, the results ond discussion are merged together.  
Fifth,the be assessed developed tool need to be assessed in a new c ohort of gastroparetic patients 
t oassess its validity.  
I recommend to rewrite this section in order to make it more clear to the re aders.  
 
 
2. Physiologic data such as gastric emptying time are not presented and their correlation to the 
patient reported outcome tool were not assessed.  
 
 
3. No data regarding the treatment(pharmacological and non -pharmacological) were incleded in 
the manusc ript. 
 
 
4. Introduction section is too long and contains information that although interesting is is not 
essential for the undertstanding the manuscript.  
 
 
 
 
Are the methods approp riate 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.  
 
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 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 wa y 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 t he 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 cont ent 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 your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
No 
 
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 named report  
including any attachments I uploa d will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Acc ess 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  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Twenty -five years of advocacy for patients with gastroparesis: support group therapy and  
patient reported outcome tool development  
 
Version: 0 Date: 19 Dec 2015  
 
Reviewer: Tiberiu Hershcovici  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is an interesting ma nuscript concluding the experience of the authors  in using support group 
therapy in patients with gastroparesis. The patient reported outcome tool presented can be used 
in the future to assess QoL of these patients.  
 
 
Major comments:  
 
1. The Results are not c learly presented.  
 
First, the raw data (scores on each of the scales assessed) are not presentedonly.  
 
Second, only positive correlations are presented.  
 
Third, the presentation is "narrative" and not "structured" as usually required.  
 
Fourth, in the last pa ragrahs, the results ond discussion are merged together.  
Fifth,the be assessed developed tool need to be assessed in a new c ohort of gastroparetic patients 
t oassess its validity.  
I recommend to rewrite this section in order to make it more clear to the re aders.  
 
 
2. Physiologic data such as gastric emptying time are not presented and their correlation to the 
patient reported outcome tool were not assessed.  
 
 
3. No data regarding the treatment(pharmacological and non -pharmacological) were incleded in 
the manusc ript. 
 
 
4. Introduction section is too long and contains information that although interesting is is not 
essential for the undertstanding the manuscript.  
 
 
 
 
Are the methods approp riate 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.  
 
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 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 wa y 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 t he 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 cont ent 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 your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
No 
 
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 named report  
including any attachments I uploa d will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Acc ess 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  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Twenty -five years of advocacy for patients with gastroparesis: support group therapy and  
patient reported outcome tool development  
 
Version: 0 Date: 19 Dec 2015  
 
Reviewer: Tiberiu Hershcovici  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is an interesting ma nuscript concluding the experience of the authors  in using support group 
therapy in patients with gastroparesis. The patient reported outcome tool presented can be used 
in the future to assess QoL of these patients.  
 
 
Major comments:  
 
1. The Results are not c learly presented.  
 
First, the raw data (scores on each of the scales assessed) are not presentedonly.  
 
Second, only positive correlations are presented.  
 
Third, the presentation is "narrative" and not "structured" as usually required.  
 
Fourth, in the last pa ragrahs, the results ond discussion are merged together.  
Fifth,the be assessed developed tool need to be assessed in a new c ohort of gastroparetic patients 
t oassess its validity.  
I recommend to rewrite this section in order to make it more clear to the re aders.  
 
 
2. Physiologic data such as gastric emptying time are not presented and their correlation to the 
patient reported outcome tool were not assessed.  
 
 
3. No data regarding the treatment(pharmacological and non -pharmacological) were incleded in 
the manusc ript. 
 
 
4. Introduction section is too long and contains information that although interesting is is not 
essential for the undertstanding the manuscript.  
 
 
 
 
Are the methods approp riate 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.  
 
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 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 wa y 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 t he 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 cont ent 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 your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
No 
 
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 named report  
including any attachments I uploa d will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Acc ess 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  
assistant