Reviewer's report
Title:Written versus verbal patient information before gastrointestinal
endoscopy: a randomized trial
Version: 1Date:31 March 2008
Reviewer: Markus B Frenz
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
The question posed by the authors is well defined. They compare written versus
verbal patient information before gi endoscopy in a randomized trial.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
The methods are well described and seem appropirate. In order to make the two
groups more comparable bthe verbal consent group should also have received
the information at the same time before the procedure as the written informed
consent group (not on the day of the procedure).
3. Are the data sound?
Yes
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
Yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
Yes
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Yes
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
Yes
9. Is the writing acceptable?
Yes
• Discretionary Revisions
none
• Minor Essential Revisions
The authors refer to figure one on page 5 and 6. This figure does not appear in
the figure section and is missing from the paper. This should be ammendet.
• Major Compulsory Revisions (which the author must respond to before a
decision on publication can be reached)
None
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:Written versus verbal patient information before gastrointestinal
endoscopy: a randomized trial
Version: 1Date:31 March 2008
Reviewer: Markus B Frenz
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
The question posed by the authors is well defined. They compare written versus
verbal patient information before gi endoscopy in a randomized trial.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
The methods are well described and seem appropirate. In order to make the two
groups more comparable bthe verbal consent group should also have received
the information at the same time before the procedure as the written informed
consent group (not on the day of the procedure).
3. Are the data sound?
Yes
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
Yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
Yes
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Yes
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
Yes
9. Is the writing acceptable?
Yes
• Discretionary Revisions
none
• Minor Essential Revisions
The authors refer to figure one on page 5 and 6. This figure does not appear in
the figure section and is missing from the paper. This should be ammendet.
• Major Compulsory Revisions (which the author must respond to before a
decision on publication can be reached)
None
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:Written versus verbal patient information before gastrointestinal
endoscopy: a randomized trial
Version: 1Date:31 March 2008
Reviewer: Markus B Frenz
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
The question posed by the authors is well defined. They compare written versus
verbal patient information before gi endoscopy in a randomized trial.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
The methods are well described and seem appropirate. In order to make the two
groups more comparable bthe verbal consent group should also have received
the information at the same time before the procedure as the written informed
consent group (not on the day of the procedure).
3. Are the data sound?
Yes
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
Yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
Yes
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Yes
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
Yes
9. Is the writing acceptable?
Yes
• Discretionary Revisions
none
• Minor Essential Revisions
The authors refer to figure one on page 5 and 6. This figure does not appear in
the figure section and is missing from the paper. This should be ammendet.
• Major Compulsory Revisions (which the author must respond to before a
decision on publication can be reached)
None
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