Reviewer's report 
 Clinicians' management strategies for patients with symptoms from the upper gastrointestinal Title: 
tract: a qualitative approach 
 1  8 March 2005 Version: Date: 
 Johanna I Westbrook Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This paper is well written and reports the results of a very interesting study examining the variation in 
clinicians’ responses to a series of cases studies. 
The results build on previous research demonstrating the considerable variation in clinicians’ 
treatment responses, and also illustrates the extent to which clinicians believe their colleagues 
behaviour is similar to their own. The study approach was well designed and the results were clearly 
described. 
My only suggestions are around typographical errors and a few grammatical errors. (see below) 
I would have no hesitation in recommending this paper for publication. I thought it was a very neat 
study and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
Page 4, paragraph 2 line 5 the word ‘interindividually’ needs to be changed. 
Page 12 paragraph 3 line 2. The authors state “ the validity of the information yielded in the 
interviews in our study could be questioned” I don’t think validity is the correct word in this statement. 
I believe the authors mean that the clinicians failed to provide correct information to this question as 
they left out many of the other factors worthy of consideration. 
Page 13 paragraph 1 line 3 I suggest the following change to the sentence “….irrespective of how 
much it [in fact] differs from that of …” 
Page 13 paragraph 2 line 7 replace format with form 
Line 9 change outmost to utmost Line 10 this sentence does not make sense and needs to be reworded. Paragraph 3 line 1 remove ‘the’ so that it reads ..”letting patients’ preferences..” 
Page 14 
Conclusions Line 1 change add to adds 
Line 1 reword ‘ ..that even in cases where there is consensus in the scientific literature on treatment, 
variations in ..” 
Paragraph 2 line 4 & 5 it should read ‘’..together with cost-effectiveness as a priority”. 
The last sentence of the conclusion needs to be re-worded as it is not clear. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
Reviewer's report 
 Clinicians' management strategies for patients with symptoms from the upper gastrointestinal Title: 
tract: a qualitative approach 
 1  8 March 2005 Version: Date: 
 Johanna I Westbrook Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This paper is well written and reports the results of a very interesting study examining the variation in 
clinicians’ responses to a series of cases studies. 
The results build on previous research demonstrating the considerable variation in clinicians’ 
treatment responses, and also illustrates the extent to which clinicians believe their colleagues 
behaviour is similar to their own. The study approach was well designed and the results were clearly 
described. 
My only suggestions are around typographical errors and a few grammatical errors. (see below) 
I would have no hesitation in recommending this paper for publication. I thought it was a very neat 
study and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
Page 4, paragraph 2 line 5 the word ‘interindividually’ needs to be changed. 
Page 12 paragraph 3 line 2. The authors state “ the validity of the information yielded in the 
interviews in our study could be questioned” I don’t think validity is the correct word in this statement. 
I believe the authors mean that the clinicians failed to provide correct information to this question as 
they left out many of the other factors worthy of consideration. 
Page 13 paragraph 1 line 3 I suggest the following change to the sentence “….irrespective of how 
much it [in fact] differs from that of …” 
Page 13 paragraph 2 line 7 replace format with form 
Line 9 change outmost to utmost Line 10 this sentence does not make sense and needs to be reworded. Paragraph 3 line 1 remove ‘the’ so that it reads ..”letting patients’ preferences..” 
Page 14 
Conclusions Line 1 change add to adds 
Line 1 reword ‘ ..that even in cases where there is consensus in the scientific literature on treatment, 
variations in ..” 
Paragraph 2 line 4 & 5 it should read ‘’..together with cost-effectiveness as a priority”. 
The last sentence of the conclusion needs to be re-worded as it is not clear. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Clinicians' management strategies for patients with symptoms from the upper gastrointestinal Title: 
tract: a qualitative approach 
 1  8 March 2005 Version: Date: 
 Johanna I Westbrook Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This paper is well written and reports the results of a very interesting study examining the variation in 
clinicians’ responses to a series of cases studies. 
The results build on previous research demonstrating the considerable variation in clinicians’ 
treatment responses, and also illustrates the extent to which clinicians believe their colleagues 
behaviour is similar to their own. The study approach was well designed and the results were clearly 
described. 
My only suggestions are around typographical errors and a few grammatical errors. (see below) 
I would have no hesitation in recommending this paper for publication. I thought it was a very neat 
study and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
Page 4, paragraph 2 line 5 the word ‘interindividually’ needs to be changed. 
Page 12 paragraph 3 line 2. The authors state “ the validity of the information yielded in the 
interviews in our study could be questioned” I don’t think validity is the correct word in this statement. 
I believe the authors mean that the clinicians failed to provide correct information to this question as 
they left out many of the other factors worthy of consideration. 
Page 13 paragraph 1 line 3 I suggest the following change to the sentence “….irrespective of how 
much it [in fact] differs from that of …” 
Page 13 paragraph 2 line 7 replace format with form 
Line 9 change outmost to utmost Line 10 this sentence does not make sense and needs to be reworded. Paragraph 3 line 1 remove ‘the’ so that it reads ..”letting patients’ preferences..” 
Page 14 
Conclusions Line 1 change add to adds 
Line 1 reword ‘ ..that even in cases where there is consensus in the scientific literature on treatment, 
variations in ..” 
Paragraph 2 line 4 & 5 it should read ‘’..together with cost-effectiveness as a priority”. 
The last sentence of the conclusion needs to be re-worded as it is not clear. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
assistant