Reviewer's report
Title:Prediction of symptomatic improvement after exposure-based treatment for
irritable bowel syndrome.
Version: 2Date:11 October 2013
Reviewer: Wijnand Laan
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
None
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. Trial registration should not go into the abstract section, now it appears like the
paper describes a trial. Just add it to the methods section like this: This study
included 79 self-referred participants with a diagnosis of IBS who had
participated in a randomized controlled study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01171053)
of ICBT for IBS, where they were randomized to either treatment (n=39) or
waiting list control (n=40) for 10 weeks [27].
2. The 'sentence' starting on line 2, page 7 does not make any grammatical
sense: 'Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01171053'. Please rephrase it so
it contains at least one verb.
3. Line 24, page 16: The sentence reads like the main conclusion of the paper is
the fact that study is important (We believe the findings of the present study to be
important). I think the conclusions should be related to the results, not to whether
the study itself is important or not).
4. I feel the conclusion of a paper should be limited to a few lines only as is it
should present only the conclusion. Now the authors present a discussion within
the conclusions (line 6 and 7, page 17: However, it is possible that (....)). I would
strongly suggest to limit the number of lines in the conclusion section to a
maximum of five.
Discretionary Revisions:
5. Line 11 page 5: GSA should not be included in the [brackets] of the reference
but (get their own). This is repeated on further on in the paper several times, I do
not think is proper referencing to include the abbreviation in the citation brackets
as this is commonly done with author names. I will not make further remarks
regarding this.
6. The sentence starting on line 12, page 6 is obsolete given the sentence
starting on line 6 of the same page.
7. Line 12 page 7 (and throughout the whole paper): Table is not to be written
with a capital T.
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:Prediction of symptomatic improvement after exposure-based treatment for
irritable bowel syndrome.
Version: 2Date:11 October 2013
Reviewer: Wijnand Laan
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
None
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. Trial registration should not go into the abstract section, now it appears like the
paper describes a trial. Just add it to the methods section like this: This study
included 79 self-referred participants with a diagnosis of IBS who had
participated in a randomized controlled study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01171053)
of ICBT for IBS, where they were randomized to either treatment (n=39) or
waiting list control (n=40) for 10 weeks [27].
2. The 'sentence' starting on line 2, page 7 does not make any grammatical
sense: 'Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01171053'. Please rephrase it so
it contains at least one verb.
3. Line 24, page 16: The sentence reads like the main conclusion of the paper is
the fact that study is important (We believe the findings of the present study to be
important). I think the conclusions should be related to the results, not to whether
the study itself is important or not).
4. I feel the conclusion of a paper should be limited to a few lines only as is it
should present only the conclusion. Now the authors present a discussion within
the conclusions (line 6 and 7, page 17: However, it is possible that (....)). I would
strongly suggest to limit the number of lines in the conclusion section to a
maximum of five.
Discretionary Revisions:
5. Line 11 page 5: GSA should not be included in the [brackets] of the reference
but (get their own). This is repeated on further on in the paper several times, I do
not think is proper referencing to include the abbreviation in the citation brackets
as this is commonly done with author names. I will not make further remarks
regarding this.
6. The sentence starting on line 12, page 6 is obsolete given the sentence
starting on line 6 of the same page.
7. Line 12 page 7 (and throughout the whole paper): Table is not to be written
with a capital T.
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:Prediction of symptomatic improvement after exposure-based treatment for
irritable bowel syndrome.
Version: 2Date:11 October 2013
Reviewer: Wijnand Laan
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
None
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. Trial registration should not go into the abstract section, now it appears like the
paper describes a trial. Just add it to the methods section like this: This study
included 79 self-referred participants with a diagnosis of IBS who had
participated in a randomized controlled study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01171053)
of ICBT for IBS, where they were randomized to either treatment (n=39) or
waiting list control (n=40) for 10 weeks [27].
2. The 'sentence' starting on line 2, page 7 does not make any grammatical
sense: 'Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01171053'. Please rephrase it so
it contains at least one verb.
3. Line 24, page 16: The sentence reads like the main conclusion of the paper is
the fact that study is important (We believe the findings of the present study to be
important). I think the conclusions should be related to the results, not to whether
the study itself is important or not).
4. I feel the conclusion of a paper should be limited to a few lines only as is it
should present only the conclusion. Now the authors present a discussion within
the conclusions (line 6 and 7, page 17: However, it is possible that (....)). I would
strongly suggest to limit the number of lines in the conclusion section to a
maximum of five.
Discretionary Revisions:
5. Line 11 page 5: GSA should not be included in the [brackets] of the reference
but (get their own). This is repeated on further on in the paper several times, I do
not think is proper referencing to include the abbreviation in the citation brackets
as this is commonly done with author names. I will not make further remarks
regarding this.
6. The sentence starting on line 12, page 6 is obsolete given the sentence
starting on line 6 of the same page.
7. Line 12 page 7 (and throughout the whole paper): Table is not to be written
with a capital T.
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