Reviewer's report
Title:A magic pill? A qualitative analysis of patients' views on the role of
antidepressant therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)
Version: 1Date:16 November 2011
Reviewer: Hillary Bogner
Reviewer's report:
Comments on “A magic pill? A qualitative analysis of patients’ views on the role
of antidepressant therapy in inflammatory bowel disease. ”
This manuscript is an interesting examination of the experiences of patients with
IBD on antidepressants. I hope the following comments will be helpful to the
authors is any subsequent revision of the paper.
Introduction: I was not clear on the authors’ rationale for selecting study
participants solely from among the practice’s patients on antidepressants versus
all patients with IBD if the objective is to ascertain the acceptability of
antidepressants. The authors bring up this point in the discussion but maybe they
should rephrase their objective.
Methods: I was confused if the team used any specific qualitative software to aid
in the coding and analysis of transcripts.
Results: The reader would have more confidence in the results by verification
through “triangulation,” “member checking,” discussion presence/absence of
divergent patient views, or other method.
Results: It would be useful to differentiate between gender, IBD type differences
in terms of study end-points. Do men, older adults, ulcerative colitis patients have
different views?
Discussion: I would appreciate some discussion of the current results obtained in
a specialty setting compared to results of studies conducted in other settings
such as a primary care setting.
Discussion: The authors discuss the acceptance of clinical trials but these
patients were those who agreed to be in a research study.
Tables: Could the authors please add more information to the tables and figures
such as where the data is gathered from and the year. The n should be added to
table 1.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:A magic pill? A qualitative analysis of patients' views on the role of
antidepressant therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)
Version: 1Date:16 November 2011
Reviewer: Hillary Bogner
Reviewer's report:
Comments on “A magic pill? A qualitative analysis of patients’ views on the role
of antidepressant therapy in inflammatory bowel disease. ”
This manuscript is an interesting examination of the experiences of patients with
IBD on antidepressants. I hope the following comments will be helpful to the
authors is any subsequent revision of the paper.
Introduction: I was not clear on the authors’ rationale for selecting study
participants solely from among the practice’s patients on antidepressants versus
all patients with IBD if the objective is to ascertain the acceptability of
antidepressants. The authors bring up this point in the discussion but maybe they
should rephrase their objective.
Methods: I was confused if the team used any specific qualitative software to aid
in the coding and analysis of transcripts.
Results: The reader would have more confidence in the results by verification
through “triangulation,” “member checking,” discussion presence/absence of
divergent patient views, or other method.
Results: It would be useful to differentiate between gender, IBD type differences
in terms of study end-points. Do men, older adults, ulcerative colitis patients have
different views?
Discussion: I would appreciate some discussion of the current results obtained in
a specialty setting compared to results of studies conducted in other settings
such as a primary care setting.
Discussion: The authors discuss the acceptance of clinical trials but these
patients were those who agreed to be in a research study.
Tables: Could the authors please add more information to the tables and figures
such as where the data is gathered from and the year. The n should be added to
table 1.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:A magic pill? A qualitative analysis of patients' views on the role of
antidepressant therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)
Version: 1Date:16 November 2011
Reviewer: Hillary Bogner
Reviewer's report:
Comments on “A magic pill? A qualitative analysis of patients’ views on the role
of antidepressant therapy in inflammatory bowel disease. ”
This manuscript is an interesting examination of the experiences of patients with
IBD on antidepressants. I hope the following comments will be helpful to the
authors is any subsequent revision of the paper.
Introduction: I was not clear on the authors’ rationale for selecting study
participants solely from among the practice’s patients on antidepressants versus
all patients with IBD if the objective is to ascertain the acceptability of
antidepressants. The authors bring up this point in the discussion but maybe they
should rephrase their objective.
Methods: I was confused if the team used any specific qualitative software to aid
in the coding and analysis of transcripts.
Results: The reader would have more confidence in the results by verification
through “triangulation,” “member checking,” discussion presence/absence of
divergent patient views, or other method.
Results: It would be useful to differentiate between gender, IBD type differences
in terms of study end-points. Do men, older adults, ulcerative colitis patients have
different views?
Discussion: I would appreciate some discussion of the current results obtained in
a specialty setting compared to results of studies conducted in other settings
such as a primary care setting.
Discussion: The authors discuss the acceptance of clinical trials but these
patients were those who agreed to be in a research study.
Tables: Could the authors please add more information to the tables and figures
such as where the data is gathered from and the year. The n should be added to
table 1.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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