Reviewer's report 
 Generic and Disease-Specific Health Related Quality of Life in Non-cirrhotic, Cirrhotic and Title: 
Transplanted Liver Patients: a cross-sectional study. 
 2  11 September 2003 Version: Date: 
 Gordon Taylor Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Pg 5 para 1 ln -2. “The protocol was conform the ethical guidelines”. Check grammer 
Pg 7 ln 2. Please provide Confidence intervals for the estimates of Kappa. 
Pg 8 para 2 ln 8. “were similar as the robust standard errors etc”. Check grammer 
Pg 10 ln 5 & 8: “In total 1175 respondents were included in the analysis”. This sentence has been 
included twice in this short paragraph. 
Pg 10 para 2 ln 5 (and other places in the paper) : The mean amount of time spent on paid or 
voluntary work has been presented without any idea of the spread of the data. 
Pg 12: The authors regularly mention significant associations or probabilities but do not define these. 
Please state the P values. 
Table 1: Why is the 1st/2nd stage tertiary education score for the Dunch MFI-20 controls zero? If true 
they appear to be a very different group in this respect. If it is not relevant then please remove. 
Minor Compulsory Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which 
the author can be trusted to correct) 
Pg 7 ln -1 : Are the adults really randomly drawn? I am not sure how the Dutch telephone directories 
are organised. However, in the UK it would not be possible to do this. Please can you provide some 
more information on this? 
Pg 9: ln 2 : The odds ratios have been corrected for age, gender, education level, aetiology med. 
Use etc. Is the adjustment for so many factors justified? I would like to see a justification for this level
of correction. 
Pg 10 ln 4 : “1222 gave informed consent”. I am unclear of the difference between the 1222 patients 
that have given informed consent and the 1243 patients that completed the questionnaire. I would 
suggest that someone who has completed and returned the questionnaire has given their consent. Perhaps a short discussion on the authors approach to this could be included. 
Pg 11 & 12 : Much of the discussion on the data that is in the tables in unnecessary and is already 
available to the reader in the tables themselves with an explanation of its meaning in the discussion. 
 Accept after minor compulsory revisions Advice on publication: 
 A paper whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None 
Reviewer's report 
 Generic and Disease-Specific Health Related Quality of Life in Non-cirrhotic, Cirrhotic and Title: 
Transplanted Liver Patients: a cross-sectional study. 
 2  11 September 2003 Version: Date: 
 Gordon Taylor Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Pg 5 para 1 ln -2. “The protocol was conform the ethical guidelines”. Check grammer 
Pg 7 ln 2. Please provide Confidence intervals for the estimates of Kappa. 
Pg 8 para 2 ln 8. “were similar as the robust standard errors etc”. Check grammer 
Pg 10 ln 5 & 8: “In total 1175 respondents were included in the analysis”. This sentence has been 
included twice in this short paragraph. 
Pg 10 para 2 ln 5 (and other places in the paper) : The mean amount of time spent on paid or 
voluntary work has been presented without any idea of the spread of the data. 
Pg 12: The authors regularly mention significant associations or probabilities but do not define these. 
Please state the P values. 
Table 1: Why is the 1st/2nd stage tertiary education score for the Dunch MFI-20 controls zero? If true 
they appear to be a very different group in this respect. If it is not relevant then please remove. 
Minor Compulsory Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which 
the author can be trusted to correct) 
Pg 7 ln -1 : Are the adults really randomly drawn? I am not sure how the Dutch telephone directories 
are organised. However, in the UK it would not be possible to do this. Please can you provide some 
more information on this? 
Pg 9: ln 2 : The odds ratios have been corrected for age, gender, education level, aetiology med. 
Use etc. Is the adjustment for so many factors justified? I would like to see a justification for this level
of correction. 
Pg 10 ln 4 : “1222 gave informed consent”. I am unclear of the difference between the 1222 patients 
that have given informed consent and the 1243 patients that completed the questionnaire. I would 
suggest that someone who has completed and returned the questionnaire has given their consent. Perhaps a short discussion on the authors approach to this could be included. 
Pg 11 & 12 : Much of the discussion on the data that is in the tables in unnecessary and is already 
available to the reader in the tables themselves with an explanation of its meaning in the discussion. 
 Accept after minor compulsory revisions Advice on publication: 
 A paper whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Generic and Disease-Specific Health Related Quality of Life in Non-cirrhotic, Cirrhotic and Title: 
Transplanted Liver Patients: a cross-sectional study. 
 2  11 September 2003 Version: Date: 
 Gordon Taylor Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Pg 5 para 1 ln -2. “The protocol was conform the ethical guidelines”. Check grammer 
Pg 7 ln 2. Please provide Confidence intervals for the estimates of Kappa. 
Pg 8 para 2 ln 8. “were similar as the robust standard errors etc”. Check grammer 
Pg 10 ln 5 & 8: “In total 1175 respondents were included in the analysis”. This sentence has been 
included twice in this short paragraph. 
Pg 10 para 2 ln 5 (and other places in the paper) : The mean amount of time spent on paid or 
voluntary work has been presented without any idea of the spread of the data. 
Pg 12: The authors regularly mention significant associations or probabilities but do not define these. 
Please state the P values. 
Table 1: Why is the 1st/2nd stage tertiary education score for the Dunch MFI-20 controls zero? If true 
they appear to be a very different group in this respect. If it is not relevant then please remove. 
Minor Compulsory Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which 
the author can be trusted to correct) 
Pg 7 ln -1 : Are the adults really randomly drawn? I am not sure how the Dutch telephone directories 
are organised. However, in the UK it would not be possible to do this. Please can you provide some 
more information on this? 
Pg 9: ln 2 : The odds ratios have been corrected for age, gender, education level, aetiology med. 
Use etc. Is the adjustment for so many factors justified? I would like to see a justification for this level
of correction. 
Pg 10 ln 4 : “1222 gave informed consent”. I am unclear of the difference between the 1222 patients 
that have given informed consent and the 1243 patients that completed the questionnaire. I would 
suggest that someone who has completed and returned the questionnaire has given their consent. Perhaps a short discussion on the authors approach to this could be included. 
Pg 11 & 12 : Much of the discussion on the data that is in the tables in unnecessary and is already 
available to the reader in the tables themselves with an explanation of its meaning in the discussion. 
 Accept after minor compulsory revisions Advice on publication: 
 A paper whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None 
assistant