Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation of the Birmingham IBS Symptom Questionnaire.
Version: 1Date:14 March 2008
Reviewer: Lloyd Sutherland
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary changes
1. Community (population based) sample rather than a referral based sample
2. Well written, concise review of the literature
3. The authors might want to consider placing a copyright symbol on the
questionnaire, not for monetary gain but to control the use of the questionnaire.
Minor essential revisions
1. Questions in the questionnaire use a 4 week passage of time whilst the
second questionnaire was sent out within 10 days. Given the fact that the authors
state in the Background that trials should have a duration of 2-3 months, co the
authors think that the difference in time might have altered the acceptability of the
questionnaire.
2. In future trials would the authors recommend using both the IBS Symptom
questionnaire and the IBS-QOL questionnaire.
3. How was the random sample created?
4. Did the questionnaire perform well in both genders?
What next?: Accept without revision
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation of the Birmingham IBS Symptom Questionnaire.
Version: 1Date:14 March 2008
Reviewer: Lloyd Sutherland
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary changes
1. Community (population based) sample rather than a referral based sample
2. Well written, concise review of the literature
3. The authors might want to consider placing a copyright symbol on the
questionnaire, not for monetary gain but to control the use of the questionnaire.
Minor essential revisions
1. Questions in the questionnaire use a 4 week passage of time whilst the
second questionnaire was sent out within 10 days. Given the fact that the authors
state in the Background that trials should have a duration of 2-3 months, co the
authors think that the difference in time might have altered the acceptability of the
questionnaire.
2. In future trials would the authors recommend using both the IBS Symptom
questionnaire and the IBS-QOL questionnaire.
3. How was the random sample created?
4. Did the questionnaire perform well in both genders?
What next?: Accept without revision
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation of the Birmingham IBS Symptom Questionnaire.
Version: 1Date:14 March 2008
Reviewer: Lloyd Sutherland
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary changes
1. Community (population based) sample rather than a referral based sample
2. Well written, concise review of the literature
3. The authors might want to consider placing a copyright symbol on the
questionnaire, not for monetary gain but to control the use of the questionnaire.
Minor essential revisions
1. Questions in the questionnaire use a 4 week passage of time whilst the
second questionnaire was sent out within 10 days. Given the fact that the authors
state in the Background that trials should have a duration of 2-3 months, co the
authors think that the difference in time might have altered the acceptability of the
questionnaire.
2. In future trials would the authors recommend using both the IBS Symptom
questionnaire and the IBS-QOL questionnaire.
3. How was the random sample created?
4. Did the questionnaire perform well in both genders?
What next?: Accept without revision
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant