Reviewer's report
Title:Development of a validated Patient Reported Symptom Metric for Pediatric
Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Qualitative Methods
Version: 3Date:20 September 2011
Reviewer: Emuella Flood
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
It is fair to say that a distinction between Flood et al and this study is that in this
study a separate sample was used to perform concept elicitation and cognitive
debriefing. However, the Flood et al symptom diary was developed with patient
input and did involve assessing content validity. The interviews included both
concept eliciation (peformed first with open-ended questions) and cognitive
debriefing, and the diary was revised substantially based on both the concept
eliciation findings (e.g., adding symptoms mentioned by patients) and cognitive
debriefing. As noted in the PRO Guidance, "developers can draft the domains
and items to be measured based on literature and expert opinion. Subsequently,
patient interviews, focus groups and qualitative cognitive interviewing ensures
understanding and completeness of concepts..."
Therefore, text starting on lines 61, 94, 258 and 260 should be revised to reflect
this.
Additionally, it would be beneficial to note the similarities between the two
measures (there is quite a nice overlap in symptoms), as corroborating evidence
suggesting that the item content of PEESS is relevant and comprehensive.
Finally, the issue around recall is not just one of responsiveness, but also
children's ability to think back a month and recall the frequency and severity of
their symptoms, as well as the need to then try to average their experiences over
that period.
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:Development of a validated Patient Reported Symptom Metric for Pediatric
Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Qualitative Methods
Version: 3Date:20 September 2011
Reviewer: Emuella Flood
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
It is fair to say that a distinction between Flood et al and this study is that in this
study a separate sample was used to perform concept elicitation and cognitive
debriefing. However, the Flood et al symptom diary was developed with patient
input and did involve assessing content validity. The interviews included both
concept eliciation (peformed first with open-ended questions) and cognitive
debriefing, and the diary was revised substantially based on both the concept
eliciation findings (e.g., adding symptoms mentioned by patients) and cognitive
debriefing. As noted in the PRO Guidance, "developers can draft the domains
and items to be measured based on literature and expert opinion. Subsequently,
patient interviews, focus groups and qualitative cognitive interviewing ensures
understanding and completeness of concepts..."
Therefore, text starting on lines 61, 94, 258 and 260 should be revised to reflect
this.
Additionally, it would be beneficial to note the similarities between the two
measures (there is quite a nice overlap in symptoms), as corroborating evidence
suggesting that the item content of PEESS is relevant and comprehensive.
Finally, the issue around recall is not just one of responsiveness, but also
children's ability to think back a month and recall the frequency and severity of
their symptoms, as well as the need to then try to average their experiences over
that period.
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:Development of a validated Patient Reported Symptom Metric for Pediatric
Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Qualitative Methods
Version: 3Date:20 September 2011
Reviewer: Emuella Flood
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
It is fair to say that a distinction between Flood et al and this study is that in this
study a separate sample was used to perform concept elicitation and cognitive
debriefing. However, the Flood et al symptom diary was developed with patient
input and did involve assessing content validity. The interviews included both
concept eliciation (peformed first with open-ended questions) and cognitive
debriefing, and the diary was revised substantially based on both the concept
eliciation findings (e.g., adding symptoms mentioned by patients) and cognitive
debriefing. As noted in the PRO Guidance, "developers can draft the domains
and items to be measured based on literature and expert opinion. Subsequently,
patient interviews, focus groups and qualitative cognitive interviewing ensures
understanding and completeness of concepts..."
Therefore, text starting on lines 61, 94, 258 and 260 should be revised to reflect
this.
Additionally, it would be beneficial to note the similarities between the two
measures (there is quite a nice overlap in symptoms), as corroborating evidence
suggesting that the item content of PEESS is relevant and comprehensive.
Finally, the issue around recall is not just one of responsiveness, but also
children's ability to think back a month and recall the frequency and severity of
their symptoms, as well as the need to then try to average their experiences over
that period.
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