Reviewer's report 
 Anxiety and depression in patients with gastrointestinal cancer: does knowledge of cancer diagnosis Title: 
matter? 
 1  11 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 Alv Dahl Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I am sorry for my conclusion, but this paper does not reach the scientific standards of an international 
journal for the reasons given below. I recommend publication in a national journal. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
1) The sample is heterogenous with cancers from the whole gastrointestinal tract (GIT). To represent a new 
contribution, the sample has to consist of one type of GIT cancers with staging and treatment information. 
2) Without being introduced as a research aim, the study compares anxiety and depression in patients who 
are informed or not informed about their cancer. This is a major focus of the paper, which should be 
introduced and presented as an aim. 
3) The presentation of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) is based on old references and 
thinking. This should be updated. See for example Bjelland et al:J Psychosom Res 2002;52:69-77 or 
Olssøn et al: BMC Psychiatry 2005,5:46. 
4) Nothing is staed about the use of statistical software. To use ANOVA when 142 patients are separated 
into four groups has a considerable risk of type II error, and no correction like Bonferroni has been applied. 
5) Table 1. should rather be divided into cancer patients who were informed or not. 
6) The study is only descriptive. At this level of research som regression analyses should be performed in 
order to examine which factors that show the strongest associations with anxiety and depression. 
7) The Discussion lacks a comparison with the findings of other studies in the field. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
The English is quite good, but some misspellings should be corrected. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Reject because too small an advance to publish What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
Reviewer's report 
 Anxiety and depression in patients with gastrointestinal cancer: does knowledge of cancer diagnosis Title: 
matter? 
 1  11 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 Alv Dahl Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I am sorry for my conclusion, but this paper does not reach the scientific standards of an international 
journal for the reasons given below. I recommend publication in a national journal. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
1) The sample is heterogenous with cancers from the whole gastrointestinal tract (GIT). To represent a new 
contribution, the sample has to consist of one type of GIT cancers with staging and treatment information. 
2) Without being introduced as a research aim, the study compares anxiety and depression in patients who 
are informed or not informed about their cancer. This is a major focus of the paper, which should be 
introduced and presented as an aim. 
3) The presentation of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) is based on old references and 
thinking. This should be updated. See for example Bjelland et al:J Psychosom Res 2002;52:69-77 or 
Olssøn et al: BMC Psychiatry 2005,5:46. 
4) Nothing is staed about the use of statistical software. To use ANOVA when 142 patients are separated 
into four groups has a considerable risk of type II error, and no correction like Bonferroni has been applied. 
5) Table 1. should rather be divided into cancer patients who were informed or not. 
6) The study is only descriptive. At this level of research som regression analyses should be performed in 
order to examine which factors that show the strongest associations with anxiety and depression. 
7) The Discussion lacks a comparison with the findings of other studies in the field. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
The English is quite good, but some misspellings should be corrected. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Reject because too small an advance to publish What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Anxiety and depression in patients with gastrointestinal cancer: does knowledge of cancer diagnosis Title: 
matter? 
 1  11 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 Alv Dahl Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I am sorry for my conclusion, but this paper does not reach the scientific standards of an international 
journal for the reasons given below. I recommend publication in a national journal. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
1) The sample is heterogenous with cancers from the whole gastrointestinal tract (GIT). To represent a new 
contribution, the sample has to consist of one type of GIT cancers with staging and treatment information. 
2) Without being introduced as a research aim, the study compares anxiety and depression in patients who 
are informed or not informed about their cancer. This is a major focus of the paper, which should be 
introduced and presented as an aim. 
3) The presentation of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) is based on old references and 
thinking. This should be updated. See for example Bjelland et al:J Psychosom Res 2002;52:69-77 or 
Olssøn et al: BMC Psychiatry 2005,5:46. 
4) Nothing is staed about the use of statistical software. To use ANOVA when 142 patients are separated 
into four groups has a considerable risk of type II error, and no correction like Bonferroni has been applied. 
5) Table 1. should rather be divided into cancer patients who were informed or not. 
6) The study is only descriptive. At this level of research som regression analyses should be performed in 
order to examine which factors that show the strongest associations with anxiety and depression. 
7) The Discussion lacks a comparison with the findings of other studies in the field. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
The English is quite good, but some misspellings should be corrected. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Reject because too small an advance to publish What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
assistant