Reviewer's report
Title:Clinical and Psychosocial Variables Associated with Behavioral Intentions
to Undergo Surveillance Endoscopy.
Version:3Date:15 February 2014
Reviewer: Chelsea Drennan
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
None.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. The Methods section of the manuscript needs further explanation of the
inclusion and exclusion criteria.
2. The Background section of the Abstract should be revised to state ‘Many
patients with Barrett’s Esophagus do not participate in guideline-recommended
endoscopic surveillance.’, as it is not an issue of receipt, but one of adherence to
guidelines.
3. The Methods section of the Abstract should be revised to state potential
subjects were screened using the EMR of a regional VA medical center and a
pathologically confirmed BE surveillance registry. Likewise, the BE registry
population response rate is missing from the Methods section of the manuscript.
Discretionary Revisions:
1. The Results section of the Abstract could be revised to include a one sentence
description of the study population as this snap-shot of predominantly
college-educated, white males is not generalizable or further emphasize the
demographics of the participants in the Discussion section of the manuscript.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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:Clinical and Psychosocial Variables Associated with Behavioral Intentions
to Undergo Surveillance Endoscopy.
Version:3Date:15 February 2014
Reviewer: Chelsea Drennan
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
None.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. The Methods section of the manuscript needs further explanation of the
inclusion and exclusion criteria.
2. The Background section of the Abstract should be revised to state ‘Many
patients with Barrett’s Esophagus do not participate in guideline-recommended
endoscopic surveillance.’, as it is not an issue of receipt, but one of adherence to
guidelines.
3. The Methods section of the Abstract should be revised to state potential
subjects were screened using the EMR of a regional VA medical center and a
pathologically confirmed BE surveillance registry. Likewise, the BE registry
population response rate is missing from the Methods section of the manuscript.
Discretionary Revisions:
1. The Results section of the Abstract could be revised to include a one sentence
description of the study population as this snap-shot of predominantly
college-educated, white males is not generalizable or further emphasize the
demographics of the participants in the Discussion section of the manuscript.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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:Clinical and Psychosocial Variables Associated with Behavioral Intentions
to Undergo Surveillance Endoscopy.
Version:3Date:15 February 2014
Reviewer: Chelsea Drennan
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
None.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. The Methods section of the manuscript needs further explanation of the
inclusion and exclusion criteria.
2. The Background section of the Abstract should be revised to state ‘Many
patients with Barrett’s Esophagus do not participate in guideline-recommended
endoscopic surveillance.’, as it is not an issue of receipt, but one of adherence to
guidelines.
3. The Methods section of the Abstract should be revised to state potential
subjects were screened using the EMR of a regional VA medical center and a
pathologically confirmed BE surveillance registry. Likewise, the BE registry
population response rate is missing from the Methods section of the manuscript.
Discretionary Revisions:
1. The Results section of the Abstract could be revised to include a one sentence
description of the study population as this snap-shot of predominantly
college-educated, white males is not generalizable or further emphasize the
demographics of the participants in the Discussion section of the manuscript.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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