Reviewer's report
Title:Perspectives on gastroesophageal reflux disease in primary care: the
REFLEX study of patient-physician agreement
Version: 1Date:20 September 2010
Reviewer: Maarten Hemmink
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
This interesting and well-written study is performed with a large number of
patients and with a large number of participating physicians. It regards the level
of agreement between patients and physicians about the prescribed PPI therapy
and shows that there is considerable difference between the patient’s and the
physician’s view on the effect of the prescribed therapy. Please find the
suggestions below.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Abstract section (conclusion): please rephrase the last sentence. According to
the aim of the study agreement between patients and physicians should be the
main outcome, this is not reflected by the conclusion.
2. As this is an industry-sponsored study it may be good to provide some data
about the kind of prescribed PPI.
3. Methods: how was the data collected? Did the physician collect the patient’s
questionnaires, or were they sent by mail?
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Methods/Results section: it is likely that the collected data about the
expectations of patients and physicians, and their lever of agreement, is
influenced by the fact that these data is collected after the start of the therapy.
2. If available, it should be interesting to add information about the patient’s
health related quality of life.
3. Result section, residual symptoms and impact, 2nd paragraph: please remove
the last sentence, as this does not add any useful information, or clarify in the
discussion why this is important.
4. Discussion section: 3rd paragrap: the last 2 sentences are clear and are the
main result of the study. The following sentences need some rephrasing:
“patient-physician agreement … daytime heartburn” is this difference really
interesting and significant? If so, differ kappa values significantly? In addition to
this: the next sentence “However … (good agreement).” does not seem to clarify
the authors conclusion and could be removed.
Discretionary Revisions
1. Figure 2: x-axis: “Patient’s expectation of treatment” should be “patient’s and
physician’s expectations”
2. Table 2: k-values: a suggestion to increase the readability of the table: kappa
value expressed in 2 decimals instead of 3
3. Methods: please clarify why the use of OTM by patients is scored according to
the physician, why not by the patient’s questionnaires?
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:Perspectives on gastroesophageal reflux disease in primary care: the
REFLEX study of patient-physician agreement
Version: 1Date:20 September 2010
Reviewer: Maarten Hemmink
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
This interesting and well-written study is performed with a large number of
patients and with a large number of participating physicians. It regards the level
of agreement between patients and physicians about the prescribed PPI therapy
and shows that there is considerable difference between the patient’s and the
physician’s view on the effect of the prescribed therapy. Please find the
suggestions below.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Abstract section (conclusion): please rephrase the last sentence. According to
the aim of the study agreement between patients and physicians should be the
main outcome, this is not reflected by the conclusion.
2. As this is an industry-sponsored study it may be good to provide some data
about the kind of prescribed PPI.
3. Methods: how was the data collected? Did the physician collect the patient’s
questionnaires, or were they sent by mail?
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Methods/Results section: it is likely that the collected data about the
expectations of patients and physicians, and their lever of agreement, is
influenced by the fact that these data is collected after the start of the therapy.
2. If available, it should be interesting to add information about the patient’s
health related quality of life.
3. Result section, residual symptoms and impact, 2nd paragraph: please remove
the last sentence, as this does not add any useful information, or clarify in the
discussion why this is important.
4. Discussion section: 3rd paragrap: the last 2 sentences are clear and are the
main result of the study. The following sentences need some rephrasing:
“patient-physician agreement … daytime heartburn” is this difference really
interesting and significant? If so, differ kappa values significantly? In addition to
this: the next sentence “However … (good agreement).” does not seem to clarify
the authors conclusion and could be removed.
Discretionary Revisions
1. Figure 2: x-axis: “Patient’s expectation of treatment” should be “patient’s and
physician’s expectations”
2. Table 2: k-values: a suggestion to increase the readability of the table: kappa
value expressed in 2 decimals instead of 3
3. Methods: please clarify why the use of OTM by patients is scored according to
the physician, why not by the patient’s questionnaires?
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:Perspectives on gastroesophageal reflux disease in primary care: the
REFLEX study of patient-physician agreement
Version: 1Date:20 September 2010
Reviewer: Maarten Hemmink
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
This interesting and well-written study is performed with a large number of
patients and with a large number of participating physicians. It regards the level
of agreement between patients and physicians about the prescribed PPI therapy
and shows that there is considerable difference between the patient’s and the
physician’s view on the effect of the prescribed therapy. Please find the
suggestions below.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Abstract section (conclusion): please rephrase the last sentence. According to
the aim of the study agreement between patients and physicians should be the
main outcome, this is not reflected by the conclusion.
2. As this is an industry-sponsored study it may be good to provide some data
about the kind of prescribed PPI.
3. Methods: how was the data collected? Did the physician collect the patient’s
questionnaires, or were they sent by mail?
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Methods/Results section: it is likely that the collected data about the
expectations of patients and physicians, and their lever of agreement, is
influenced by the fact that these data is collected after the start of the therapy.
2. If available, it should be interesting to add information about the patient’s
health related quality of life.
3. Result section, residual symptoms and impact, 2nd paragraph: please remove
the last sentence, as this does not add any useful information, or clarify in the
discussion why this is important.
4. Discussion section: 3rd paragrap: the last 2 sentences are clear and are the
main result of the study. The following sentences need some rephrasing:
“patient-physician agreement … daytime heartburn” is this difference really
interesting and significant? If so, differ kappa values significantly? In addition to
this: the next sentence “However … (good agreement).” does not seem to clarify
the authors conclusion and could be removed.
Discretionary Revisions
1. Figure 2: x-axis: “Patient’s expectation of treatment” should be “patient’s and
physician’s expectations”
2. Table 2: k-values: a suggestion to increase the readability of the table: kappa
value expressed in 2 decimals instead of 3
3. Methods: please clarify why the use of OTM by patients is scored according to
the physician, why not by the patient’s questionnaires?
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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