Reviewer's report
Title:A randomised controlled trial of structured nurse-led outpatient clinic
follow-up for dyspeptic patients after direct access gastroscopy.
Version: 2Date:24 November 2008
Reviewer: Christine Norton
Reviewer's report:
The analysis of this paper is much improved, thank you.
Minor essential revisions:
1. It is still not clear at which point informed consent was taken: the flow chart
reads as if this was before screening for eligibility (as 21 were exluded after
being recruited)? Please make clear in text and flow chart.
2. Please calrify if patinets randomised to GP arm were advised to visit their GP
for follow up routinely, or was it left to the GP to call the patient for review?
3. Page 7, intervention: there is a word missing in "Three in GP group not to see
their GP" - is this did not want to see their GP? Please correct.
4. Page 8: was any information available about costs of further tests ordered by
the nurse or cost of surgery? If not make it clear that these costs are excluded
from the cost analysis.
5. Page 8-9 patterns of drug use: what do the figures for drug use of 1.5 and 1.7
refer to?
6. Costs are likley to balance with additional costs of nurse, especially if this was
a long consult. + cost savings would not be reaslised in practice - would not
employ less GPs.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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 randomised controlled trial of structured nurse-led outpatient clinic
follow-up for dyspeptic patients after direct access gastroscopy.
Version: 2Date:24 November 2008
Reviewer: Christine Norton
Reviewer's report:
The analysis of this paper is much improved, thank you.
Minor essential revisions:
1. It is still not clear at which point informed consent was taken: the flow chart
reads as if this was before screening for eligibility (as 21 were exluded after
being recruited)? Please make clear in text and flow chart.
2. Please calrify if patinets randomised to GP arm were advised to visit their GP
for follow up routinely, or was it left to the GP to call the patient for review?
3. Page 7, intervention: there is a word missing in "Three in GP group not to see
their GP" - is this did not want to see their GP? Please correct.
4. Page 8: was any information available about costs of further tests ordered by
the nurse or cost of surgery? If not make it clear that these costs are excluded
from the cost analysis.
5. Page 8-9 patterns of drug use: what do the figures for drug use of 1.5 and 1.7
refer to?
6. Costs are likley to balance with additional costs of nurse, especially if this was
a long consult. + cost savings would not be reaslised in practice - would not
employ less GPs.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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 randomised controlled trial of structured nurse-led outpatient clinic
follow-up for dyspeptic patients after direct access gastroscopy.
Version: 2Date:24 November 2008
Reviewer: Christine Norton
Reviewer's report:
The analysis of this paper is much improved, thank you.
Minor essential revisions:
1. It is still not clear at which point informed consent was taken: the flow chart
reads as if this was before screening for eligibility (as 21 were exluded after
being recruited)? Please make clear in text and flow chart.
2. Please calrify if patinets randomised to GP arm were advised to visit their GP
for follow up routinely, or was it left to the GP to call the patient for review?
3. Page 7, intervention: there is a word missing in "Three in GP group not to see
their GP" - is this did not want to see their GP? Please correct.
4. Page 8: was any information available about costs of further tests ordered by
the nurse or cost of surgery? If not make it clear that these costs are excluded
from the cost analysis.
5. Page 8-9 patterns of drug use: what do the figures for drug use of 1.5 and 1.7
refer to?
6. Costs are likley to balance with additional costs of nurse, especially if this was
a long consult. + cost savings would not be reaslised in practice - would not
employ less GPs.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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