Reviewer's report
Title:"Drop in" gastroscopy outpatient clinic - experience after 9 months
Version: 1Date:25 October 2011
Reviewer: Oyvind Bjertnaes
Reviewer's report:
I enjoyed reading about this project, and appreciated the inclusion of patient
evaluation and the triangulation of different perspectives. However, the project
mostly seems to be a quality improvement project, with questionable scientific
value. I wonder if the study might be better suited as a quality improvement
report in another journal. If so, the SQUIRE guidelines could be useful for the
authors
(http://www.squire-statement.org/assets/pdfs/SQUIRE_guidelines_table.pdf ).
Major Compulsory Revisions:
First, the Background lacks references to and discussion of relevant scientific
literature. It is difficult to understand why this quality improvement initiative was
chosen and what gap in the literature this study is trying to fill. Furthermore, the
Background is restricted to Norway, which will be a serious limitation for
international readers. Second, the Methods lack documentation of and reflexion
on the quality of the applied study methods including survey methodological
issues and psychometric issues. Patient satisfaction studies have been criticized
for having to little focus on reliability and validity (see for instance Sitzia J. How
valid and reliable are patient satisfaction data? An analysis of 195 studies. Int J
Qual Health Care. 1999 Aug;11(4):319-28), and this criticism is relevant for the
current study. Third, the Results should include a table with results for questions
in all three materials. Fourth, the Discussion does not discuss main findings in
relation to relevant scientific literature. Furthermore, study limitations and
external validity are hardly mentioned in the Discussion. Fifth, questionnaires
with question formulations and response scales should be included in
appendices.
Level of interest: An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a
scientific/medical journal
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:"Drop in" gastroscopy outpatient clinic - experience after 9 months
Version: 1Date:25 October 2011
Reviewer: Oyvind Bjertnaes
Reviewer's report:
I enjoyed reading about this project, and appreciated the inclusion of patient
evaluation and the triangulation of different perspectives. However, the project
mostly seems to be a quality improvement project, with questionable scientific
value. I wonder if the study might be better suited as a quality improvement
report in another journal. If so, the SQUIRE guidelines could be useful for the
authors
(http://www.squire-statement.org/assets/pdfs/SQUIRE_guidelines_table.pdf ).
Major Compulsory Revisions:
First, the Background lacks references to and discussion of relevant scientific
literature. It is difficult to understand why this quality improvement initiative was
chosen and what gap in the literature this study is trying to fill. Furthermore, the
Background is restricted to Norway, which will be a serious limitation for
international readers. Second, the Methods lack documentation of and reflexion
on the quality of the applied study methods including survey methodological
issues and psychometric issues. Patient satisfaction studies have been criticized
for having to little focus on reliability and validity (see for instance Sitzia J. How
valid and reliable are patient satisfaction data? An analysis of 195 studies. Int J
Qual Health Care. 1999 Aug;11(4):319-28), and this criticism is relevant for the
current study. Third, the Results should include a table with results for questions
in all three materials. Fourth, the Discussion does not discuss main findings in
relation to relevant scientific literature. Furthermore, study limitations and
external validity are hardly mentioned in the Discussion. Fifth, questionnaires
with question formulations and response scales should be included in
appendices.
Level of interest: An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a
scientific/medical journal
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:"Drop in" gastroscopy outpatient clinic - experience after 9 months
Version: 1Date:25 October 2011
Reviewer: Oyvind Bjertnaes
Reviewer's report:
I enjoyed reading about this project, and appreciated the inclusion of patient
evaluation and the triangulation of different perspectives. However, the project
mostly seems to be a quality improvement project, with questionable scientific
value. I wonder if the study might be better suited as a quality improvement
report in another journal. If so, the SQUIRE guidelines could be useful for the
authors
(http://www.squire-statement.org/assets/pdfs/SQUIRE_guidelines_table.pdf ).
Major Compulsory Revisions:
First, the Background lacks references to and discussion of relevant scientific
literature. It is difficult to understand why this quality improvement initiative was
chosen and what gap in the literature this study is trying to fill. Furthermore, the
Background is restricted to Norway, which will be a serious limitation for
international readers. Second, the Methods lack documentation of and reflexion
on the quality of the applied study methods including survey methodological
issues and psychometric issues. Patient satisfaction studies have been criticized
for having to little focus on reliability and validity (see for instance Sitzia J. How
valid and reliable are patient satisfaction data? An analysis of 195 studies. Int J
Qual Health Care. 1999 Aug;11(4):319-28), and this criticism is relevant for the
current study. Third, the Results should include a table with results for questions
in all three materials. Fourth, the Discussion does not discuss main findings in
relation to relevant scientific literature. Furthermore, study limitations and
external validity are hardly mentioned in the Discussion. Fifth, questionnaires
with question formulations and response scales should be included in
appendices.
Level of interest: An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a
scientific/medical journal
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