Reviewer's report 
 Acceptability and outcomes of the Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement- Title: 
patients and care givers perspectives. 
 4  2 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Anthony Catto-Smith Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have responded well and appropriately to my previous suggestions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
None identified ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report 
 Acceptability and outcomes of the Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement- Title: 
patients and care givers perspectives. 
 4  2 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Anthony Catto-Smith Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have responded well and appropriately to my previous suggestions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
None identified ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Acceptability and outcomes of the Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement- Title: 
patients and care givers perspectives. 
 4  2 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Anthony Catto-Smith Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have responded well and appropriately to my previous suggestions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
None identified ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
assistant