Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Twenty -five years of advocacy for patients with gastroparesis: support gr oup therapy and  
patient reported outcome tool development  
 
Version: 0 Date: 30 Dec 2015  
 
Reviewer: Yishai Ron  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This article ios very interesting in its concept. A bit too picturous in its description of the patients 
group in the background section.  
 
 
1. The authors should be careful by defining recommendations for gastroparesis as GE 
studies were not performed / not presented. I would change the leading title to  - possible 
gastroparesis by symptoms  or symptoms which may  be compatible with gastroparesis / 
dyspepsia  
 
 
2. The organization of the study is not clear / a bit confusing. pleaee devide the subheading 
to background - introduction / methods / results / discussion  
 
 
3. The authors stated the they had information for about 1000 patients. In your article 
statistics relates only to 235 patients. could you be a little more specific about that.  
 
 
4. Your results as shown reflects relations mostly to bloating & epigastric pa in. However, 
the most common complaints of gastroparesis are not fully presented  - nausea / vomiting 
/ early satiety /  
 
 
5. SF-36 related to 8 subcategories. Physical functioning / Role Physical  / Bodily pain / 
General Health / Vitality / Social function ing / Role Emotional / Mental Health. In the 
this article only 5 are mentioned. Do you have data for the rest ?  
 
 
6. Basically, using a generic HRQL measure like the SF -36 could be less specific than other 
measures like the PAGI -SYM / QOL ect. It should be i nteresting to compare to those 
measures  
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or  would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any wa y gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in t he future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the cont ent of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
No cempeting interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I uploa d will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Acc ess Creative Commons  
CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Twenty -five years of advocacy for patients with gastroparesis: support gr oup therapy and  
patient reported outcome tool development  
 
Version: 0 Date: 30 Dec 2015  
 
Reviewer: Yishai Ron  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This article ios very interesting in its concept. A bit too picturous in its description of the patients 
group in the background section.  
 
 
1. The authors should be careful by defining recommendations for gastroparesis as GE 
studies were not performed / not presented. I would change the leading title to  - possible 
gastroparesis by symptoms  or symptoms which may  be compatible with gastroparesis / 
dyspepsia  
 
 
2. The organization of the study is not clear / a bit confusing. pleaee devide the subheading 
to background - introduction / methods / results / discussion  
 
 
3. The authors stated the they had information for about 1000 patients. In your article 
statistics relates only to 235 patients. could you be a little more specific about that.  
 
 
4. Your results as shown reflects relations mostly to bloating & epigastric pa in. However, 
the most common complaints of gastroparesis are not fully presented  - nausea / vomiting 
/ early satiety /  
 
 
5. SF-36 related to 8 subcategories. Physical functioning / Role Physical  / Bodily pain / 
General Health / Vitality / Social function ing / Role Emotional / Mental Health. In the 
this article only 5 are mentioned. Do you have data for the rest ?  
 
 
6. Basically, using a generic HRQL measure like the SF -36 could be less specific than other 
measures like the PAGI -SYM / QOL ect. It should be i nteresting to compare to those 
measures  
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or  would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any wa y gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in t he future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the cont ent of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
No cempeting interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I uploa d will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Acc ess Creative Commons  
CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Twenty -five years of advocacy for patients with gastroparesis: support gr oup therapy and  
patient reported outcome tool development  
 
Version: 0 Date: 30 Dec 2015  
 
Reviewer: Yishai Ron  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This article ios very interesting in its concept. A bit too picturous in its description of the patients 
group in the background section.  
 
 
1. The authors should be careful by defining recommendations for gastroparesis as GE 
studies were not performed / not presented. I would change the leading title to  - possible 
gastroparesis by symptoms  or symptoms which may  be compatible with gastroparesis / 
dyspepsia  
 
 
2. The organization of the study is not clear / a bit confusing. pleaee devide the subheading 
to background - introduction / methods / results / discussion  
 
 
3. The authors stated the they had information for about 1000 patients. In your article 
statistics relates only to 235 patients. could you be a little more specific about that.  
 
 
4. Your results as shown reflects relations mostly to bloating & epigastric pa in. However, 
the most common complaints of gastroparesis are not fully presented  - nausea / vomiting 
/ early satiety /  
 
 
5. SF-36 related to 8 subcategories. Physical functioning / Role Physical  / Bodily pain / 
General Health / Vitality / Social function ing / Role Emotional / Mental Health. In the 
this article only 5 are mentioned. Do you have data for the rest ?  
 
 
6. Basically, using a generic HRQL measure like the SF -36 could be less specific than other 
measures like the PAGI -SYM / QOL ect. It should be i nteresting to compare to those 
measures  
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or  would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any wa y gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in t he future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the cont ent of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
No cempeting interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I uploa d will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Acc ess Creative Commons  
CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant