Reviewer's report
Title:Feasibility and cost-effectiveness of internet-based exposure treatment for
irritable bowel syndrome in a clinical sample: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 3Date:21 July 2011
Reviewer: Rona Moss-Morris
Reviewer's report:
The authors have done a thorough job of addressing the reviewers’ comments. I
just have two comments to make.
1. … ‘at the end of treatment’ or ‘at 10 weeks’ should be added to the following
hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1:
Our primary hypothesis was that, compared to a waiting list, ICBT would lead to
greater reductions in IBS-symptoms.
2. The authors have misinterpreted my point about ITT. I wasn’t suggesting using
last observation forward as I agree; modeling has now replaced this method.
However, if you have data for at least one follow-up, a mixed model will keep
these people in the model. Therefore a better way to assess if gains were
maintained at 12 months without losing such a large percentage of cases is to
include all 3 time points for the treatment group in the model. I realise this would
be difficult for the post treatment comparison between groups as there is only
one follow-up point, so perhaps in this context, what the authors have done with
the last observation forward is one way to test what happens if all people are
considered.
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:Feasibility and cost-effectiveness of internet-based exposure treatment for
irritable bowel syndrome in a clinical sample: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 3Date:21 July 2011
Reviewer: Rona Moss-Morris
Reviewer's report:
The authors have done a thorough job of addressing the reviewers’ comments. I
just have two comments to make.
1. … ‘at the end of treatment’ or ‘at 10 weeks’ should be added to the following
hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1:
Our primary hypothesis was that, compared to a waiting list, ICBT would lead to
greater reductions in IBS-symptoms.
2. The authors have misinterpreted my point about ITT. I wasn’t suggesting using
last observation forward as I agree; modeling has now replaced this method.
However, if you have data for at least one follow-up, a mixed model will keep
these people in the model. Therefore a better way to assess if gains were
maintained at 12 months without losing such a large percentage of cases is to
include all 3 time points for the treatment group in the model. I realise this would
be difficult for the post treatment comparison between groups as there is only
one follow-up point, so perhaps in this context, what the authors have done with
the last observation forward is one way to test what happens if all people are
considered.
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:Feasibility and cost-effectiveness of internet-based exposure treatment for
irritable bowel syndrome in a clinical sample: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 3Date:21 July 2011
Reviewer: Rona Moss-Morris
Reviewer's report:
The authors have done a thorough job of addressing the reviewers’ comments. I
just have two comments to make.
1. … ‘at the end of treatment’ or ‘at 10 weeks’ should be added to the following
hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1:
Our primary hypothesis was that, compared to a waiting list, ICBT would lead to
greater reductions in IBS-symptoms.
2. The authors have misinterpreted my point about ITT. I wasn’t suggesting using
last observation forward as I agree; modeling has now replaced this method.
However, if you have data for at least one follow-up, a mixed model will keep
these people in the model. Therefore a better way to assess if gains were
maintained at 12 months without losing such a large percentage of cases is to
include all 3 time points for the treatment group in the model. I realise this would
be difficult for the post treatment comparison between groups as there is only
one follow-up point, so perhaps in this context, what the authors have done with
the last observation forward is one way to test what happens if all people are
considered.
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