Reviewer's report
Title:Patients' perspectives of living with a percutaneous endoscopic
gastrostomy (PEG)
Version: 1Date:29 June 2012
Reviewer: David Sanders
Reviewer's report:
This is an important article from a group who have published many key papers in
this field.
The authors uniquely describe patient’s perspectives. Although this has been
done previously using quality of life tools overall there is a significant paucity in
the literature. The investigators have made some important novel observations.
I have a few points:
1. I think the emphasis in both the abstract conclusion and conclusion at the end
of the paper is a little downbeat! Ultimately 73% of patients said they were
satisfied with their Peg (Table 2). I think this should be reflected in both abstract
conclusion and conclusion of paper
2. Methodology: I think it would be valuable to attribute numbers to the different
exclusion groups. How many did not speak Swedish etc
3. The questionnaire that was used – has it been used elsewhere? Is it
validated? Did they pilot the questionnaire? I think this adds important
information for the reader particularly if other investigators wish to
validate/support their observations internationally
4. Could the authors discuss a little some of Brotherton’s work on patients
negative PEG experiences – this ties in with the investigators novel work
5. The discussion on PEG clinic should also involve other options. I have
enclosed a community paper not because it is from our group but because it is
both contemporaneous and relevant to their discussion. I hope this is helpful.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
nothing to declare
Reviewer's report
Title:Patients' perspectives of living with a percutaneous endoscopic
gastrostomy (PEG)
Version: 1Date:29 June 2012
Reviewer: David Sanders
Reviewer's report:
This is an important article from a group who have published many key papers in
this field.
The authors uniquely describe patient’s perspectives. Although this has been
done previously using quality of life tools overall there is a significant paucity in
the literature. The investigators have made some important novel observations.
I have a few points:
1. I think the emphasis in both the abstract conclusion and conclusion at the end
of the paper is a little downbeat! Ultimately 73% of patients said they were
satisfied with their Peg (Table 2). I think this should be reflected in both abstract
conclusion and conclusion of paper
2. Methodology: I think it would be valuable to attribute numbers to the different
exclusion groups. How many did not speak Swedish etc
3. The questionnaire that was used – has it been used elsewhere? Is it
validated? Did they pilot the questionnaire? I think this adds important
information for the reader particularly if other investigators wish to
validate/support their observations internationally
4. Could the authors discuss a little some of Brotherton’s work on patients
negative PEG experiences – this ties in with the investigators novel work
5. The discussion on PEG clinic should also involve other options. I have
enclosed a community paper not because it is from our group but because it is
both contemporaneous and relevant to their discussion. I hope this is helpful.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
nothing to declare
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Patients' perspectives of living with a percutaneous endoscopic
gastrostomy (PEG)
Version: 1Date:29 June 2012
Reviewer: David Sanders
Reviewer's report:
This is an important article from a group who have published many key papers in
this field.
The authors uniquely describe patient’s perspectives. Although this has been
done previously using quality of life tools overall there is a significant paucity in
the literature. The investigators have made some important novel observations.
I have a few points:
1. I think the emphasis in both the abstract conclusion and conclusion at the end
of the paper is a little downbeat! Ultimately 73% of patients said they were
satisfied with their Peg (Table 2). I think this should be reflected in both abstract
conclusion and conclusion of paper
2. Methodology: I think it would be valuable to attribute numbers to the different
exclusion groups. How many did not speak Swedish etc
3. The questionnaire that was used – has it been used elsewhere? Is it
validated? Did they pilot the questionnaire? I think this adds important
information for the reader particularly if other investigators wish to
validate/support their observations internationally
4. Could the authors discuss a little some of Brotherton’s work on patients
negative PEG experiences – this ties in with the investigators novel work
5. The discussion on PEG clinic should also involve other options. I have
enclosed a community paper not because it is from our group but because it is
both contemporaneous and relevant to their discussion. I hope this is helpful.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
nothing to declare
assistant