Reviewer's report
Title:Patients' perspectives of living with a percutaneous endoscopic
gastrostomy (PEG)
Version: 1Date:28 June 2012
Reviewer: Rupert Leong
Reviewer's report:
This study uniquely offers an insight as to the biopsychosocial model of PEG
acceptance in over 100 subjects. The study was original and manuscript was of a
good length and well-written. The overall conclusion was that PEGs are
perceived negatively in a large proportion of subjects.
Major points:
This was a descriptive studies that identified differences in PEG recipients. Some
findings deserve more discussion - eg women felt more limited in daily activity -
might be gender role differences that requires controls with the same primary
diseases or normal controls for this to make sense.
Study should include some positive aspects including the possibility of PEG
removal, good outcomes and quote Paramsothy S et al J Gastro Hepatol 2009.
The conclusion should take into account that without PEG they would be
nutritionally deprived or dead!
Minor points:
Abstract: 70% of what? Response rate?
Background: isn't it an advantage to take treatment from inpatient to home for
quality of life of patients and health care utilization & cost?
Discussion: adequately discusses bias. Should also mention that a baseline pre-
and post- PEG insertion study should be designed to paint the right light as to the
PEG experience.
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:
Nil
Reviewer's report
Title:Patients' perspectives of living with a percutaneous endoscopic
gastrostomy (PEG)
Version: 1Date:28 June 2012
Reviewer: Rupert Leong
Reviewer's report:
This study uniquely offers an insight as to the biopsychosocial model of PEG
acceptance in over 100 subjects. The study was original and manuscript was of a
good length and well-written. The overall conclusion was that PEGs are
perceived negatively in a large proportion of subjects.
Major points:
This was a descriptive studies that identified differences in PEG recipients. Some
findings deserve more discussion - eg women felt more limited in daily activity -
might be gender role differences that requires controls with the same primary
diseases or normal controls for this to make sense.
Study should include some positive aspects including the possibility of PEG
removal, good outcomes and quote Paramsothy S et al J Gastro Hepatol 2009.
The conclusion should take into account that without PEG they would be
nutritionally deprived or dead!
Minor points:
Abstract: 70% of what? Response rate?
Background: isn't it an advantage to take treatment from inpatient to home for
quality of life of patients and health care utilization & cost?
Discussion: adequately discusses bias. Should also mention that a baseline pre-
and post- PEG insertion study should be designed to paint the right light as to the
PEG experience.
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:
Nil
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Patients' perspectives of living with a percutaneous endoscopic
gastrostomy (PEG)
Version: 1Date:28 June 2012
Reviewer: Rupert Leong
Reviewer's report:
This study uniquely offers an insight as to the biopsychosocial model of PEG
acceptance in over 100 subjects. The study was original and manuscript was of a
good length and well-written. The overall conclusion was that PEGs are
perceived negatively in a large proportion of subjects.
Major points:
This was a descriptive studies that identified differences in PEG recipients. Some
findings deserve more discussion - eg women felt more limited in daily activity -
might be gender role differences that requires controls with the same primary
diseases or normal controls for this to make sense.
Study should include some positive aspects including the possibility of PEG
removal, good outcomes and quote Paramsothy S et al J Gastro Hepatol 2009.
The conclusion should take into account that without PEG they would be
nutritionally deprived or dead!
Minor points:
Abstract: 70% of what? Response rate?
Background: isn't it an advantage to take treatment from inpatient to home for
quality of life of patients and health care utilization & cost?
Discussion: adequately discusses bias. Should also mention that a baseline pre-
and post- PEG insertion study should be designed to paint the right light as to the
PEG experience.
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:
Nil
assistant