Reviewer's report
Title:Title: Comparison of medical costs generated by IBS patients in primary
and secondary care in the Netherlands
Version:2Date:26 June 2015
Reviewer: Bridget Southwell
Reviewer's report:
BMC Gastro Flik et al.
This is a well written paper in an interesting area. The authors have collected
data on the costs of healthcare for IBS patients in primary and secondary
settings and compared these to patients without IBS. The study is done in the
Netherlands where healthcare insurance is compulsory. The data is obtained
from one Insurance company which is one of the largest in the Netherlands and
covers more than 1 million patients and from a Primary Care Network at the
University Medical Centre in Utrecht covering ¼ million patients. The data reveal
the increase in costs in patients diagnosed with IBS and in secondary care.
Policy and practise rely on data on the costs of treatments and these authors are
to be commended for extracting this data for IBS.
Minor Essential Revisions:
Data is presented comprehensively in 5 large tables. I have some small editorial
suggestions for the tables and in the text.
Table 2, 3, 4, 5 : add the letter ‘T’ and its definition into heading
Add ‘(SD)’ to headings to read ‘Mean (SD) annual after’ and ‘Mean (SD) dif’ so it
is clear what the number in brackets is. I did find it in the heading but this would
make it immediate for the reader.
Where p<0.05- bold the value. This is a standard that draws the reader’s
attention to the significant rows.
Table 3: Is the column for p values missing? It makes sense to have it as in the
other tables.
Text comments:
There is inconsistent use of a space before reference brackets- ie sometimes
there is a space and sometimes there is not. Make it consistent throughout the
document.
Page 6 line 138, change ‘ensured’ to ‘insured’
Page 6 line 141, add space after full stop.
Page 12 line 271, add space after ‘IBS’
Page 12 line 286, should ‘specialism’ be ‘specialty’
Page 14 line 325, add space between ‘these’ and ‘criteria’
Page 14 line 337-338. Points in the conclusion should have been made already,
rather than appearing for the first time in the conclusion. The sentence ‘this factor
stresses……” is in the conclusion but has not been stated in the discussion.
Please discuss this concept in the discussion. You can use more sentences to
discuss it.
Page 16 line 378, move ‘suggestion’ to between ‘gave’ and ‘with’.
end.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Title: Comparison of medical costs generated by IBS patients in primary
and secondary care in the Netherlands
Version:2Date:26 June 2015
Reviewer: Bridget Southwell
Reviewer's report:
BMC Gastro Flik et al.
This is a well written paper in an interesting area. The authors have collected
data on the costs of healthcare for IBS patients in primary and secondary
settings and compared these to patients without IBS. The study is done in the
Netherlands where healthcare insurance is compulsory. The data is obtained
from one Insurance company which is one of the largest in the Netherlands and
covers more than 1 million patients and from a Primary Care Network at the
University Medical Centre in Utrecht covering ¼ million patients. The data reveal
the increase in costs in patients diagnosed with IBS and in secondary care.
Policy and practise rely on data on the costs of treatments and these authors are
to be commended for extracting this data for IBS.
Minor Essential Revisions:
Data is presented comprehensively in 5 large tables. I have some small editorial
suggestions for the tables and in the text.
Table 2, 3, 4, 5 : add the letter ‘T’ and its definition into heading
Add ‘(SD)’ to headings to read ‘Mean (SD) annual after’ and ‘Mean (SD) dif’ so it
is clear what the number in brackets is. I did find it in the heading but this would
make it immediate for the reader.
Where p<0.05- bold the value. This is a standard that draws the reader’s
attention to the significant rows.
Table 3: Is the column for p values missing? It makes sense to have it as in the
other tables.
Text comments:
There is inconsistent use of a space before reference brackets- ie sometimes
there is a space and sometimes there is not. Make it consistent throughout the
document.
Page 6 line 138, change ‘ensured’ to ‘insured’
Page 6 line 141, add space after full stop.
Page 12 line 271, add space after ‘IBS’
Page 12 line 286, should ‘specialism’ be ‘specialty’
Page 14 line 325, add space between ‘these’ and ‘criteria’
Page 14 line 337-338. Points in the conclusion should have been made already,
rather than appearing for the first time in the conclusion. The sentence ‘this factor
stresses……” is in the conclusion but has not been stated in the discussion.
Please discuss this concept in the discussion. You can use more sentences to
discuss it.
Page 16 line 378, move ‘suggestion’ to between ‘gave’ and ‘with’.
end.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Title: Comparison of medical costs generated by IBS patients in primary
and secondary care in the Netherlands
Version:2Date:26 June 2015
Reviewer: Bridget Southwell
Reviewer's report:
BMC Gastro Flik et al.
This is a well written paper in an interesting area. The authors have collected
data on the costs of healthcare for IBS patients in primary and secondary
settings and compared these to patients without IBS. The study is done in the
Netherlands where healthcare insurance is compulsory. The data is obtained
from one Insurance company which is one of the largest in the Netherlands and
covers more than 1 million patients and from a Primary Care Network at the
University Medical Centre in Utrecht covering ¼ million patients. The data reveal
the increase in costs in patients diagnosed with IBS and in secondary care.
Policy and practise rely on data on the costs of treatments and these authors are
to be commended for extracting this data for IBS.
Minor Essential Revisions:
Data is presented comprehensively in 5 large tables. I have some small editorial
suggestions for the tables and in the text.
Table 2, 3, 4, 5 : add the letter ‘T’ and its definition into heading
Add ‘(SD)’ to headings to read ‘Mean (SD) annual after’ and ‘Mean (SD) dif’ so it
is clear what the number in brackets is. I did find it in the heading but this would
make it immediate for the reader.
Where p<0.05- bold the value. This is a standard that draws the reader’s
attention to the significant rows.
Table 3: Is the column for p values missing? It makes sense to have it as in the
other tables.
Text comments:
There is inconsistent use of a space before reference brackets- ie sometimes
there is a space and sometimes there is not. Make it consistent throughout the
document.
Page 6 line 138, change ‘ensured’ to ‘insured’
Page 6 line 141, add space after full stop.
Page 12 line 271, add space after ‘IBS’
Page 12 line 286, should ‘specialism’ be ‘specialty’
Page 14 line 325, add space between ‘these’ and ‘criteria’
Page 14 line 337-338. Points in the conclusion should have been made already,
rather than appearing for the first time in the conclusion. The sentence ‘this factor
stresses……” is in the conclusion but has not been stated in the discussion.
Please discuss this concept in the discussion. You can use more sentences to
discuss it.
Page 16 line 378, move ‘suggestion’ to between ‘gave’ and ‘with’.
end.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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