Reviewer's report
Title:Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for dyspepsia: Exploratory study of
factors influencing patient compliance in Greece
Version: 2Date:8 November 2010
Reviewer: Aanand Naik
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Overall, the authors
were responsive to the reviewers' suggestions and areas of comment. I have two
overall suggestions related to this new revision. 1)Please accept all track
changes and then highlight any edits with italics or underline function. The tables
are not readable with track changes. 2) Please have a native English speaker
read and edit the manuscript. The prior version had a few scattered areas that
were problematic. The manuscript now is difficult to follow without extensive
editing.
--I would be willing to review again, but as of now I found the manuscript very
difficult to read and follow because of the combination of these two points.
Minor essential revisions:
a) Remove the quantitative comment in the methods section of the abstract and
remove the quantitative statistical analysis described in the methods. This is a
qualitative paper (not even a mixed methods paper) and you should leave out the
quantitative elements except in perhaps your demographics paper. But
comparisons here are strictly for descriptive purposes.
b) The transitions in the introduction need to be better linked. The authors have
been responsive to the reviewers but the transitions between paragraphs are
difficult to follow.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Reviewer's report
Title:Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for dyspepsia: Exploratory study of
factors influencing patient compliance in Greece
Version: 2Date:8 November 2010
Reviewer: Aanand Naik
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Overall, the authors
were responsive to the reviewers' suggestions and areas of comment. I have two
overall suggestions related to this new revision. 1)Please accept all track
changes and then highlight any edits with italics or underline function. The tables
are not readable with track changes. 2) Please have a native English speaker
read and edit the manuscript. The prior version had a few scattered areas that
were problematic. The manuscript now is difficult to follow without extensive
editing.
--I would be willing to review again, but as of now I found the manuscript very
difficult to read and follow because of the combination of these two points.
Minor essential revisions:
a) Remove the quantitative comment in the methods section of the abstract and
remove the quantitative statistical analysis described in the methods. This is a
qualitative paper (not even a mixed methods paper) and you should leave out the
quantitative elements except in perhaps your demographics paper. But
comparisons here are strictly for descriptive purposes.
b) The transitions in the introduction need to be better linked. The authors have
been responsive to the reviewers but the transitions between paragraphs are
difficult to follow.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for dyspepsia: Exploratory study of
factors influencing patient compliance in Greece
Version: 2Date:8 November 2010
Reviewer: Aanand Naik
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Overall, the authors
were responsive to the reviewers' suggestions and areas of comment. I have two
overall suggestions related to this new revision. 1)Please accept all track
changes and then highlight any edits with italics or underline function. The tables
are not readable with track changes. 2) Please have a native English speaker
read and edit the manuscript. The prior version had a few scattered areas that
were problematic. The manuscript now is difficult to follow without extensive
editing.
--I would be willing to review again, but as of now I found the manuscript very
difficult to read and follow because of the combination of these two points.
Minor essential revisions:
a) Remove the quantitative comment in the methods section of the abstract and
remove the quantitative statistical analysis described in the methods. This is a
qualitative paper (not even a mixed methods paper) and you should leave out the
quantitative elements except in perhaps your demographics paper. But
comparisons here are strictly for descriptive purposes.
b) The transitions in the introduction need to be better linked. The authors have
been responsive to the reviewers but the transitions between paragraphs are
difficult to follow.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
assistant