Reviewer's report
Title:Health Related Quality of Life in Patients with Chronic Gastritis and Peptic
Ulcer and Factors with Impact: A Longitudinal Study
Version:3Date:30 June 2014
Reviewer: Linda Dirven
Reviewer's report:
HRQoL and its influence factors in patients with chronic gastritis and peptic ulcer:
a longitudinal questionnaire survey
The authors have made considerable revisions to the manuscript as suggested
by the referees. However, some comments are not completely answered. I would
therefore suggest that the authors incorporate some additional amendments.
1) The title suggests that HRQoL is assessed over time, but when looking at the
objectives of the study (last paragraph of the introduction), this is not described
as a goal. This should be added.
2) The authors state in their answers to the reviewer that patients with peptic
ulcers and those with gastritis are combined for the regression analysis. In
addition, they state in their answers that ‘if we can differentiate between the two
diseases, we can further study why, and then take suitable measures to improve
their QOL’. If it is important to identify factors with an impact on HRQoL, shouldn’t
this be done for the two diseases separately? Especially since this is an
explorative study and also because the results show that HRQoL is different for
the two diseases.
3) The authors respond to point 28 that ‘it is common display for multiple linear
regression in statistics with many advantages. It is difficult to give reference
category for continuous and ordered variables, such as age, perceived income’.
First, when looking at table 1, the variables ‘age’ and’ perceived income’ are
presented as categorical variables. It is therefore difficult to see that they are
included as continuous variables in the regression analysis. Maybe it would be
better to report these variables as continuous variables in table 1 as well,
because now it looks contradictive. Moreover, variables that are ordered are also
categorical variables; for this type of analyses, ordered variables should be
included as categorical variables. Lastly, I understand that table 4 and 5 are
based on the output of the analysis, but it would be worth interpreting results
before presenting them in the table. By that I mean that reporting ‘male gender’
instead of ‘gender’ would be more informative. At that moment a reader would
immediately see that females are the reference category and that males have a
better HRQoL. This does not change the results in the table, it is just a matter of
rewording the variables that are described.
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
Reviewer's report
Title:Health Related Quality of Life in Patients with Chronic Gastritis and Peptic
Ulcer and Factors with Impact: A Longitudinal Study
Version:3Date:30 June 2014
Reviewer: Linda Dirven
Reviewer's report:
HRQoL and its influence factors in patients with chronic gastritis and peptic ulcer:
a longitudinal questionnaire survey
The authors have made considerable revisions to the manuscript as suggested
by the referees. However, some comments are not completely answered. I would
therefore suggest that the authors incorporate some additional amendments.
1) The title suggests that HRQoL is assessed over time, but when looking at the
objectives of the study (last paragraph of the introduction), this is not described
as a goal. This should be added.
2) The authors state in their answers to the reviewer that patients with peptic
ulcers and those with gastritis are combined for the regression analysis. In
addition, they state in their answers that ‘if we can differentiate between the two
diseases, we can further study why, and then take suitable measures to improve
their QOL’. If it is important to identify factors with an impact on HRQoL, shouldn’t
this be done for the two diseases separately? Especially since this is an
explorative study and also because the results show that HRQoL is different for
the two diseases.
3) The authors respond to point 28 that ‘it is common display for multiple linear
regression in statistics with many advantages. It is difficult to give reference
category for continuous and ordered variables, such as age, perceived income’.
First, when looking at table 1, the variables ‘age’ and’ perceived income’ are
presented as categorical variables. It is therefore difficult to see that they are
included as continuous variables in the regression analysis. Maybe it would be
better to report these variables as continuous variables in table 1 as well,
because now it looks contradictive. Moreover, variables that are ordered are also
categorical variables; for this type of analyses, ordered variables should be
included as categorical variables. Lastly, I understand that table 4 and 5 are
based on the output of the analysis, but it would be worth interpreting results
before presenting them in the table. By that I mean that reporting ‘male gender’
instead of ‘gender’ would be more informative. At that moment a reader would
immediately see that females are the reference category and that males have a
better HRQoL. This does not change the results in the table, it is just a matter of
rewording the variables that are described.
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
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Health Related Quality of Life in Patients with Chronic Gastritis and Peptic
Ulcer and Factors with Impact: A Longitudinal Study
Version:3Date:30 June 2014
Reviewer: Linda Dirven
Reviewer's report:
HRQoL and its influence factors in patients with chronic gastritis and peptic ulcer:
a longitudinal questionnaire survey
The authors have made considerable revisions to the manuscript as suggested
by the referees. However, some comments are not completely answered. I would
therefore suggest that the authors incorporate some additional amendments.
1) The title suggests that HRQoL is assessed over time, but when looking at the
objectives of the study (last paragraph of the introduction), this is not described
as a goal. This should be added.
2) The authors state in their answers to the reviewer that patients with peptic
ulcers and those with gastritis are combined for the regression analysis. In
addition, they state in their answers that ‘if we can differentiate between the two
diseases, we can further study why, and then take suitable measures to improve
their QOL’. If it is important to identify factors with an impact on HRQoL, shouldn’t
this be done for the two diseases separately? Especially since this is an
explorative study and also because the results show that HRQoL is different for
the two diseases.
3) The authors respond to point 28 that ‘it is common display for multiple linear
regression in statistics with many advantages. It is difficult to give reference
category for continuous and ordered variables, such as age, perceived income’.
First, when looking at table 1, the variables ‘age’ and’ perceived income’ are
presented as categorical variables. It is therefore difficult to see that they are
included as continuous variables in the regression analysis. Maybe it would be
better to report these variables as continuous variables in table 1 as well,
because now it looks contradictive. Moreover, variables that are ordered are also
categorical variables; for this type of analyses, ordered variables should be
included as categorical variables. Lastly, I understand that table 4 and 5 are
based on the output of the analysis, but it would be worth interpreting results
before presenting them in the table. By that I mean that reporting ‘male gender’
instead of ‘gender’ would be more informative. At that moment a reader would
immediately see that females are the reference category and that males have a
better HRQoL. This does not change the results in the table, it is just a matter of
rewording the variables that are described.
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
assistant