Reviewer's report
Title:Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for dyspepsia: Exploratory study of
factors influencing patient compliance in Greece
Version: 3Date:5 January 2011
Reviewer: Aanand Naik
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed many of the other points raised in my prior reviews.
I thank the authors and the editor for the opportunity to review this interesting and
hypothesis generating work.
I have 2 Minor Essential Revisions that I trust the authors will be able to easily
make.
1) I would suggest rephrasing the conclusion of the abstract to improve clarity:
"This exploratory study found that patients with dsypepsia in rural Greece tend to
avoid upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Two major themes were attributed to
patients' refusal to undergo endoscopy: their beliefs towards endoscopy and their
perceived capability to tolerate the procedure. Future research examining
reasons for low compliance should be informed by modern behavioral theories."
2) Table 1 headings need to be consistent with the table legend. The legend
uses the terms "Adherent and Nonadherent Patients" The table itself using
"Complaints" and "Non Compliants" I would suggest sticking with "Adherent and
Nonadherent" There are three distinct points in Table 1 in which these labels
should be switched.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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' below. If your reply is yes to any,
please give details below.
Reviewer's report
Title:Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for dyspepsia: Exploratory study of
factors influencing patient compliance in Greece
Version: 3Date:5 January 2011
Reviewer: Aanand Naik
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed many of the other points raised in my prior reviews.
I thank the authors and the editor for the opportunity to review this interesting and
hypothesis generating work.
I have 2 Minor Essential Revisions that I trust the authors will be able to easily
make.
1) I would suggest rephrasing the conclusion of the abstract to improve clarity:
"This exploratory study found that patients with dsypepsia in rural Greece tend to
avoid upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Two major themes were attributed to
patients' refusal to undergo endoscopy: their beliefs towards endoscopy and their
perceived capability to tolerate the procedure. Future research examining
reasons for low compliance should be informed by modern behavioral theories."
2) Table 1 headings need to be consistent with the table legend. The legend
uses the terms "Adherent and Nonadherent Patients" The table itself using
"Complaints" and "Non Compliants" I would suggest sticking with "Adherent and
Nonadherent" There are three distinct points in Table 1 in which these labels
should be switched.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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' below. If your reply is yes to any,
please give details below.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for dyspepsia: Exploratory study of
factors influencing patient compliance in Greece
Version: 3Date:5 January 2011
Reviewer: Aanand Naik
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed many of the other points raised in my prior reviews.
I thank the authors and the editor for the opportunity to review this interesting and
hypothesis generating work.
I have 2 Minor Essential Revisions that I trust the authors will be able to easily
make.
1) I would suggest rephrasing the conclusion of the abstract to improve clarity:
"This exploratory study found that patients with dsypepsia in rural Greece tend to
avoid upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Two major themes were attributed to
patients' refusal to undergo endoscopy: their beliefs towards endoscopy and their
perceived capability to tolerate the procedure. Future research examining
reasons for low compliance should be informed by modern behavioral theories."
2) Table 1 headings need to be consistent with the table legend. The legend
uses the terms "Adherent and Nonadherent Patients" The table itself using
"Complaints" and "Non Compliants" I would suggest sticking with "Adherent and
Nonadherent" There are three distinct points in Table 1 in which these labels
should be switched.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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' below. If your reply is yes to any,
please give details below.
assistant