Title: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Functional Dyspepsia: A Systematic Review and
COSMIN Analysis
Version: 3 Date: 04 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
The review of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) by Wang et al is a very thorough and
useful piece of work for researchers contemplating patient outcomes in functional dyspepsia.
The review covers key areas including content, psychometric properties and feasibility. Overall
I feel this to be an important contribution to the literature. There are however a small number
of issues that could be addressed by the authors.
1. Inclusion criteria: While it is commendable that the authors have been thorough, I wonder if
they have cast their net too wide. I am not personally familiar with all of the instruments reported
but am aware that not all of them are designed to be functional dyspepsia (FD)-specific, for
example the GSRS and SAGIS. From one perspective I guess it is okay to evaluate the relevance
of these instruments to FD but I also question whether it is reasonable to evaluate them using the
same criteria as a disease-specific instrument. At least I believe the authors should categorise
instruments as FD-specific vs general gastrointestinal symptom burden measures and interpret
their findings in that context.
2. The range of characteristics evaluated in this review is thorough and I applaud the authors for
that. However while Table 3 provides the authors summary of psychometric properties I would
have liked to see the "raw" data provided as an appendix. I think this is important since the
categorisations made by the authors seem to involve some judgement and I think readers should
be able to make that judgement themselves.
Title: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Functional Dyspepsia: A Systematic Review and
COSMIN Analysis
Version: 3 Date: 04 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
The review of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) by Wang et al is a very thorough and
useful piece of work for researchers contemplating patient outcomes in functional dyspepsia.
The review covers key areas including content, psychometric properties and feasibility. Overall
I feel this to be an important contribution to the literature. There are however a small number
of issues that could be addressed by the authors.
1. Inclusion criteria: While it is commendable that the authors have been thorough, I wonder if
they have cast their net too wide. I am not personally familiar with all of the instruments reported
but am aware that not all of them are designed to be functional dyspepsia (FD)-specific, for
example the GSRS and SAGIS. From one perspective I guess it is okay to evaluate the relevance
of these instruments to FD but I also question whether it is reasonable to evaluate them using the
same criteria as a disease-specific instrument. At least I believe the authors should categorise
instruments as FD-specific vs general gastrointestinal symptom burden measures and interpret
their findings in that context.
2. The range of characteristics evaluated in this review is thorough and I applaud the authors for
that. However while Table 3 provides the authors summary of psychometric properties I would
have liked to see the "raw" data provided as an appendix. I think this is important since the
categorisations made by the authors seem to involve some judgement and I think readers should
be able to make that judgement themselves.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Functional Dyspepsia: A Systematic Review and
COSMIN Analysis
Version: 3 Date: 04 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
The review of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) by Wang et al is a very thorough and
useful piece of work for researchers contemplating patient outcomes in functional dyspepsia.
The review covers key areas including content, psychometric properties and feasibility. Overall
I feel this to be an important contribution to the literature. There are however a small number
of issues that could be addressed by the authors.
1. Inclusion criteria: While it is commendable that the authors have been thorough, I wonder if
they have cast their net too wide. I am not personally familiar with all of the instruments reported
but am aware that not all of them are designed to be functional dyspepsia (FD)-specific, for
example the GSRS and SAGIS. From one perspective I guess it is okay to evaluate the relevance
of these instruments to FD but I also question whether it is reasonable to evaluate them using the
same criteria as a disease-specific instrument. At least I believe the authors should categorise
instruments as FD-specific vs general gastrointestinal symptom burden measures and interpret
their findings in that context.
2. The range of characteristics evaluated in this review is thorough and I applaud the authors for
that. However while Table 3 provides the authors summary of psychometric properties I would
have liked to see the "raw" data provided as an appendix. I think this is important since the
categorisations made by the authors seem to involve some judgement and I think readers should
be able to make that judgement themselves.
assistant