Reviewer's report 
 Primary Care Physicians Approach to Diagnosis and Treatment of Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C Title: 
Patients 
 1  25 November 2003 Version: Date: 
 Victor Navarro Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
None 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
1. The respondents seem to be rather young with few years in 
practice. This gives the impression of a biased sample. This should be 
acknowledged as a limitation of the study 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
1. In the introduction, 3rd paragraph, second sentence; the numbers 
to not make sense. 
2. The diction throughout the document requires careful 
editorialization; eg, there is no word in the English language, "monitorization" (see introduction, 3rd paragraph). Also, in the abstract, the conclusion statement does not convey a clear message....."insufficient 
compatibility for true diagnoses" 
3. The methods must be described more carefully. That is, the nature of the questions asked must be clearer so that the results can be followed more easily. As an example, the 3rd sentence of the first paragraph in this 
section lists what seem to be the focuses of questions contained within the 
questionnaire. However, how these questions are asked are pertinent to accurate interpretation of the results. By more clearly describing the questions asked, the reader can more easily understand what is meant when it 
is stated that the participants stated that they could not recognize 
disease. Does this mean the participant was actually asked if they could recognize disease or was this surmised based on their responses to certain questions? 
4. The discussion is rambling and tangential. The focus should be on 
the shortcomings in the knowledge/training/practice patterns of primary care physicians in Turkey, in regards to Hepatitis C and B. There is too much recapitulation of the results. The message of the study is lost in this 
discussion; this section should be rewritten to focus on the major message 
of the paper. 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have no conflicts of interest to report in regards to this paper, its 
content, authors, or other competing interests. 
Reviewer's report 
 Primary Care Physicians Approach to Diagnosis and Treatment of Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C Title: 
Patients 
 1  25 November 2003 Version: Date: 
 Victor Navarro Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
None 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
1. The respondents seem to be rather young with few years in 
practice. This gives the impression of a biased sample. This should be 
acknowledged as a limitation of the study 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
1. In the introduction, 3rd paragraph, second sentence; the numbers 
to not make sense. 
2. The diction throughout the document requires careful 
editorialization; eg, there is no word in the English language, "monitorization" (see introduction, 3rd paragraph). Also, in the abstract, the conclusion statement does not convey a clear message....."insufficient 
compatibility for true diagnoses" 
3. The methods must be described more carefully. That is, the nature of the questions asked must be clearer so that the results can be followed more easily. As an example, the 3rd sentence of the first paragraph in this 
section lists what seem to be the focuses of questions contained within the 
questionnaire. However, how these questions are asked are pertinent to accurate interpretation of the results. By more clearly describing the questions asked, the reader can more easily understand what is meant when it 
is stated that the participants stated that they could not recognize 
disease. Does this mean the participant was actually asked if they could recognize disease or was this surmised based on their responses to certain questions? 
4. The discussion is rambling and tangential. The focus should be on 
the shortcomings in the knowledge/training/practice patterns of primary care physicians in Turkey, in regards to Hepatitis C and B. There is too much recapitulation of the results. The message of the study is lost in this 
discussion; this section should be rewritten to focus on the major message 
of the paper. 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have no conflicts of interest to report in regards to this paper, its 
content, authors, or other competing interests. 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Primary Care Physicians Approach to Diagnosis and Treatment of Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C Title: 
Patients 
 1  25 November 2003 Version: Date: 
 Victor Navarro Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
None 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
1. The respondents seem to be rather young with few years in 
practice. This gives the impression of a biased sample. This should be 
acknowledged as a limitation of the study 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
1. In the introduction, 3rd paragraph, second sentence; the numbers 
to not make sense. 
2. The diction throughout the document requires careful 
editorialization; eg, there is no word in the English language, "monitorization" (see introduction, 3rd paragraph). Also, in the abstract, the conclusion statement does not convey a clear message....."insufficient 
compatibility for true diagnoses" 
3. The methods must be described more carefully. That is, the nature of the questions asked must be clearer so that the results can be followed more easily. As an example, the 3rd sentence of the first paragraph in this 
section lists what seem to be the focuses of questions contained within the 
questionnaire. However, how these questions are asked are pertinent to accurate interpretation of the results. By more clearly describing the questions asked, the reader can more easily understand what is meant when it 
is stated that the participants stated that they could not recognize 
disease. Does this mean the participant was actually asked if they could recognize disease or was this surmised based on their responses to certain questions? 
4. The discussion is rambling and tangential. The focus should be on 
the shortcomings in the knowledge/training/practice patterns of primary care physicians in Turkey, in regards to Hepatitis C and B. There is too much recapitulation of the results. The message of the study is lost in this 
discussion; this section should be rewritten to focus on the major message 
of the paper. 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have no conflicts of interest to report in regards to this paper, its 
content, authors, or other competing interests. 
assistant