Reviewer's report
Title:Quality of health care and patient satisfaction in liver disease: the
development and first results of the QUOTE-Liver questionnaire
Version: 2Date:9 March 2008
Reviewer: Giovanni Apolone
Reviewer's report:
I have reviewed the revised version of the manuscript, together with the
document where authors has provided a response to all reviewers.
All together, answers to our comments and modifications introduced in the new
version of the paper have greatly improved its quality that now is more in line with
my expectations and with the standards of the Journals.
Major Compulsory Revisions
The title should include words that better than now ackowledge the preliminary
althoug promising nature of evidence. I would suggest to introduce the term
“preliminary” instead of “first results”
Minor Essential Revisions
My principal concerns was about the preliminary nature of data available, the
lack of some testabout the questiionaire responsiveness/capability to detect
changes and the consequent over-interpretation of current results. While other
more technical requests/comments were very well addressed, questioned or
satisfied, I still believe that currently available results do not support the “full
validity” of the questionnaire.
Thus I reccommend that this fact should be better underscored/acknowledged in
the manuscrip, mainly in the Title, Abstract and Discussion.
An additional critical issue is the utilization of non-validated external criteria and
the lack of information about the responsiveness of the new questionnaire. It is
hard to me understand as a measure intended to be used to monitor the effect of
health care interventions (i.e, an outcome) may be used without information
about its capability to detect change over time in the same group receiving a
given intervention, or changes between groups receiving different interventions.
The fact that authors had not planned this evalaution is an explanation for the
lack of information but it is still a major problem for an evaluative tool.
This limitation should be more clearly stated whereever appropriate in the paper.
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
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:Quality of health care and patient satisfaction in liver disease: the
development and first results of the QUOTE-Liver questionnaire
Version: 2Date:9 March 2008
Reviewer: Giovanni Apolone
Reviewer's report:
I have reviewed the revised version of the manuscript, together with the
document where authors has provided a response to all reviewers.
All together, answers to our comments and modifications introduced in the new
version of the paper have greatly improved its quality that now is more in line with
my expectations and with the standards of the Journals.
Major Compulsory Revisions
The title should include words that better than now ackowledge the preliminary
althoug promising nature of evidence. I would suggest to introduce the term
“preliminary” instead of “first results”
Minor Essential Revisions
My principal concerns was about the preliminary nature of data available, the
lack of some testabout the questiionaire responsiveness/capability to detect
changes and the consequent over-interpretation of current results. While other
more technical requests/comments were very well addressed, questioned or
satisfied, I still believe that currently available results do not support the “full
validity” of the questionnaire.
Thus I reccommend that this fact should be better underscored/acknowledged in
the manuscrip, mainly in the Title, Abstract and Discussion.
An additional critical issue is the utilization of non-validated external criteria and
the lack of information about the responsiveness of the new questionnaire. It is
hard to me understand as a measure intended to be used to monitor the effect of
health care interventions (i.e, an outcome) may be used without information
about its capability to detect change over time in the same group receiving a
given intervention, or changes between groups receiving different interventions.
The fact that authors had not planned this evalaution is an explanation for the
lack of information but it is still a major problem for an evaluative tool.
This limitation should be more clearly stated whereever appropriate in the paper.
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
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:Quality of health care and patient satisfaction in liver disease: the
development and first results of the QUOTE-Liver questionnaire
Version: 2Date:9 March 2008
Reviewer: Giovanni Apolone
Reviewer's report:
I have reviewed the revised version of the manuscript, together with the
document where authors has provided a response to all reviewers.
All together, answers to our comments and modifications introduced in the new
version of the paper have greatly improved its quality that now is more in line with
my expectations and with the standards of the Journals.
Major Compulsory Revisions
The title should include words that better than now ackowledge the preliminary
althoug promising nature of evidence. I would suggest to introduce the term
“preliminary” instead of “first results”
Minor Essential Revisions
My principal concerns was about the preliminary nature of data available, the
lack of some testabout the questiionaire responsiveness/capability to detect
changes and the consequent over-interpretation of current results. While other
more technical requests/comments were very well addressed, questioned or
satisfied, I still believe that currently available results do not support the “full
validity” of the questionnaire.
Thus I reccommend that this fact should be better underscored/acknowledged in
the manuscrip, mainly in the Title, Abstract and Discussion.
An additional critical issue is the utilization of non-validated external criteria and
the lack of information about the responsiveness of the new questionnaire. It is
hard to me understand as a measure intended to be used to monitor the effect of
health care interventions (i.e, an outcome) may be used without information
about its capability to detect change over time in the same group receiving a
given intervention, or changes between groups receiving different interventions.
The fact that authors had not planned this evalaution is an explanation for the
lack of information but it is still a major problem for an evaluative tool.
This limitation should be more clearly stated whereever appropriate in the paper.
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
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