Reviewer's report
Title:Physical Activity and Diet Behaviour in Colorectal Cancer Patients
Receiving Chemotherapy: Associations with Quality of Life
Version: 1Date:8 July 2009
Reviewer: anna hawkes
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions include:
1. The question is well defined by the authors.
2. The methods are appropriate and well described, however the study is limited
by the small convenience sample and is underpowered to detect significant
associations between lifestyle behaviours and quality of life. This is a major
limitation of this study.
3. The study included an impressive 96% consent rate, which one would assume
was due to on-site recruitment and the medical oncologist endorsing participation
in the study. However, the response rate did then drop to 62%.
• The outcome measures chosen are valid and reliable in this population.
• The statistical analyses appear appropriate, although one might expect the
lifestyle behavioural data to be skewed? There is no mention of testing for this?
• There is no mention of investigating socio-demographics or other available data
for non-participants.
4. The authors refer to a wide range of literature, however they do not refer to
two Australian studies that are relevant to this manuscript.
• Hawkes A L, Lynch B M, Youlden D R, Owen N, Aitken J F. Health behaviors of
Australian colorectal cancer survivors, compared with noncancer population
controls. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2008; :1-8.
• http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/7/154
5. In general the writing is acceptable, although there are a number of
recommended corrections:
• Abstract
o 58% is only approximately half, not ‘over half’.
o Suggest refer to dietary guidelines rather than ‘diet guidelines’
o Author refers to ‘were physically active at some level’ but it is unclear what this
means. Suggest author refers to sedentary or not.
o Author refers to exercise and physical activity throughout the manuscript.
Suggest they refer to physical activity alone if that is what was measured.
• Page 5
o Refer to Hawkes et al. 2008 in paragraph 2.
• Discussion
o Refer to Spence et al for future interventional research.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Physical Activity and Diet Behaviour in Colorectal Cancer Patients
Receiving Chemotherapy: Associations with Quality of Life
Version: 1Date:8 July 2009
Reviewer: anna hawkes
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions include:
1. The question is well defined by the authors.
2. The methods are appropriate and well described, however the study is limited
by the small convenience sample and is underpowered to detect significant
associations between lifestyle behaviours and quality of life. This is a major
limitation of this study.
3. The study included an impressive 96% consent rate, which one would assume
was due to on-site recruitment and the medical oncologist endorsing participation
in the study. However, the response rate did then drop to 62%.
• The outcome measures chosen are valid and reliable in this population.
• The statistical analyses appear appropriate, although one might expect the
lifestyle behavioural data to be skewed? There is no mention of testing for this?
• There is no mention of investigating socio-demographics or other available data
for non-participants.
4. The authors refer to a wide range of literature, however they do not refer to
two Australian studies that are relevant to this manuscript.
• Hawkes A L, Lynch B M, Youlden D R, Owen N, Aitken J F. Health behaviors of
Australian colorectal cancer survivors, compared with noncancer population
controls. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2008; :1-8.
• http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/7/154
5. In general the writing is acceptable, although there are a number of
recommended corrections:
• Abstract
o 58% is only approximately half, not ‘over half’.
o Suggest refer to dietary guidelines rather than ‘diet guidelines’
o Author refers to ‘were physically active at some level’ but it is unclear what this
means. Suggest author refers to sedentary or not.
o Author refers to exercise and physical activity throughout the manuscript.
Suggest they refer to physical activity alone if that is what was measured.
• Page 5
o Refer to Hawkes et al. 2008 in paragraph 2.
• Discussion
o Refer to Spence et al for future interventional research.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Physical Activity and Diet Behaviour in Colorectal Cancer Patients
Receiving Chemotherapy: Associations with Quality of Life
Version: 1Date:8 July 2009
Reviewer: anna hawkes
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions include:
1. The question is well defined by the authors.
2. The methods are appropriate and well described, however the study is limited
by the small convenience sample and is underpowered to detect significant
associations between lifestyle behaviours and quality of life. This is a major
limitation of this study.
3. The study included an impressive 96% consent rate, which one would assume
was due to on-site recruitment and the medical oncologist endorsing participation
in the study. However, the response rate did then drop to 62%.
• The outcome measures chosen are valid and reliable in this population.
• The statistical analyses appear appropriate, although one might expect the
lifestyle behavioural data to be skewed? There is no mention of testing for this?
• There is no mention of investigating socio-demographics or other available data
for non-participants.
4. The authors refer to a wide range of literature, however they do not refer to
two Australian studies that are relevant to this manuscript.
• Hawkes A L, Lynch B M, Youlden D R, Owen N, Aitken J F. Health behaviors of
Australian colorectal cancer survivors, compared with noncancer population
controls. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2008; :1-8.
• http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/7/154
5. In general the writing is acceptable, although there are a number of
recommended corrections:
• Abstract
o 58% is only approximately half, not ‘over half’.
o Suggest refer to dietary guidelines rather than ‘diet guidelines’
o Author refers to ‘were physically active at some level’ but it is unclear what this
means. Suggest author refers to sedentary or not.
o Author refers to exercise and physical activity throughout the manuscript.
Suggest they refer to physical activity alone if that is what was measured.
• Page 5
o Refer to Hawkes et al. 2008 in paragraph 2.
• Discussion
o Refer to Spence et al for future interventional research.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant