PEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS TITLE (PROVISIONAL)
|
|
- Stanley Baker
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form ( and are provided with free text boxes to elaborate on their assessment. These free text comments are reproduced below. TITLE (PROVISIONAL) AUTHORS REVIEWER REVIEW RETURNED GENERAL COMMENTS REVIEWER REVIEW RETURNED GENERAL COMMENTS ARTICLE DETAILS How do GPs in Switzerland perceive their patients satisfaction and expectations? An observational study Sebo, Paul; Herrmann, Francois; Haller, Dagmar VERSION 1 - REVIEW Carl de Wet Logan Hyperdome Doctors, Australia 12-Dec-2014 Thank you for the opportunity to review this clear and well-written manuscript. In my professional opinion it is suitable for publication in its current form. Nienke Bleijenberg Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands 25-Feb-2015 The authors conducted a cross sectional study and explored whether 23 GPs are able to accurately predict their patients' satisfaction with the care they provide, as well as their expectations in general practice. A large sample of patients was included. Although the topic is highly relevant to improve GPs care, there are several methodological concerns that seriously affects the interpretation of the results (research question, methods and outcome). Furthermore the references in this paper are all very outdated, please update. The title is misleading, and throughout the manuscript the authors state in their objective is GPs are able to predict their patients' satisfaction, but in order to predict an outcome one should have follow-up data. Since this study has a cross sectional design the aim should therefore be adjusted into assessing the association/correlation. Prediction should be removed throughout the manuscript. Methods: Selection of patients is unclear. Was this and despite the authors state in the discussion section that the risk of selection was reduced due to consecutively enrollment, selection bias cannot be ruled out and is a limitation of this study. Timing of measurement differ among patient: questionnaires were filled in before or after the visit. It would be valuable to evaluate if and to what extent this influences the results.
2 REVIEWER REVIEW RETURNED GENERAL COMMENTS The ' expectation' questionnaire was not validated. the authors state that " the questionnaire was pretested" but it is unclear what exactly was tested. The outcome variable for the logistic regression ambiguous and not clearly described. Why did the authors dichotomize the outcome? A major drawback is that they lose important information. Please describe which variables were included in the multivariate model. All variables listed in the table or another approach? Results: please include how many patients were approached. Correlations are missing. Discussion: Relevant literature and a theoretical explanation for the findings are lacking. Recommendations for clinical practice are not sufficiently described. Laurent Letrilliart Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, France 05-Mar-2015 General comments This article describes and compares patients expectations and satisfaction and the corresponding perceptions of their GP. It shows an overestimation of patients expectations and an underestimation of patients satisfaction by GPs. Certified GPs have more accurate assessments than others. The findings regarding patients expectations are original, but the stakes are not so clear and the methods used raise some questions. Spécific comments Abstract Mean patients age is likely to be 54 years rather than 64, according to the figure reported in the results section. How the main outcomes were measured should be mentioned. Introduction The introduction should be better constructed, by separating the presentation of the two issues addressed in the study (patients expectations and satisfaction, respectively), before devising their articulation. Patients «involvement in decision about their care» refers to another issue, and looks off topic. Methods What is the «local research ethics committee»? The data collected were focused on expectations and satisfaction about organisational aspects, and did not take into account other important aspects of care such as patient-physician communication or technical procedures. The authors should justify this choice. It seems that the patient clustering effect has not been considered in the analyses, in particular by using a multilevel model, which should be argued. It is hard to understand why the factors associated with an accurate assessment of patients expectations have not been evaluated also in a multivariate model. Results In tables 2 and 3, the duplication of the results in terms of numbers of patients evaluation more, less or equally favourable than GPs is not really needed. In addition, the mean difference between patients and GPs evaluations should be presented in these tables, in order to describe its direction and size, for all variables but ordinal ones.
3 In table 3, the five items exploring accessibility and availability could presumably be analysed as ordinal variables, using a rank test. Discussion Reasons why physicians should assess patients general expectations/satisfaction rather than expectations/satisfaction relating to the particular consultation should be addressed. The influence of physician s certification, which is an original finding, should be better emphasized and interpreted. In particular, are there some certification criteria that cover the organisational factors considered in the study? The sample size of GPs should actually have nothing to do with this finding, as it is taken into account by the statistical test. Which proportions of eligible patients were finally excluded from the study? To assess a possible selection bias of the participating GPs, they should be compared with the GP population in Geneva for variables such as age, gender and certification status. The social desirability bias that may apply to patients assessments is likely to be unintentional rather than intentional. Conclusion Patient satisfaction is possibly, but not certainly, related to better outcomes. VERSION 1 AUTHOR RESPONSE Reviewer Name Dr. Carl de Wet Institution and Country Logan Hyperdome Doctors, Australia Please state any competing interests or state None declared : None declared Please leave your comments for the authors below Thank you for the opportunity to review this clear and well-written manuscript. In my professional opinion it is suitable for publication in its current form. We thank the reviewer for his comment. Reviewer Name N. Bleijenberg Institution and Country Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands Please state any competing interests or state None declared : none declared Please leave your comments for the authors below The authors conducted a cross sectional study and explored whether 23 GPs are able to accurately predict their patients' satisfaction with the care they provide, as well as their expectations in general practice. A large sample of patients was included. Although the topic is highly relevant to improve GPs care, there are several methodological concerns that seriously affects the interpretation of the results (research question, methods and outcome). Furthermore the references in this paper are all very outdated, please update. We included some recent references. The title is misleading, and throughout the manuscript the authors state in their objective is GPs are able to predict their patients' satisfaction, but in order to predict an outcome one should have followup data. Since this study has a cross sectional design the aim should therefore be adjusted into assessing the association/correlation. Prediction should be removed throughout the manuscript.
4 We understand the reviewer's remark. Indeed, it is true that, in general, cross sectional studies are of limited value for investigating etiological relationships, because exposures and outcomes are measured at a particular point in time. However, as shown in Table 2 (for satisfaction items) and 3 (for expectation items), our study only compared outcomes, i.e. patients views with GPs perceptions of their patients views. Only Table 4 presented in a multivariate analysis a list of exposures (GPs characteristics) independently associated with the ability of the GPs to correctly estimate patients scores. We think that we were rather prudent in the description of these results, because, as stated in the title of the tables and the Methods, Results and Discussion sections, we presented the characteristics «associated with» and not «causing» the outcome. However, as asked by the reviewer, we removed prediction and predict throughout our manuscript. Methods: Selection of patients is unclear. Was this and despite the authors state in the discussion section that the risk of selection was reduced due to consecutively enrollment, selection bias cannot be ruled out and is a limitation of this study. The selection of the patients is described in the methods section. The participating GPs were asked to recruit between 50 and 100 consecutive patients (i.e. min 50, max 100 patients). The inclusion criteria were relatively simple: patients coming to the practice for a planned consultation (thus, patients visited at home and those seen in emergency situations were not included), age > 15, and patients understanding and writing French. All new patients and those suffering from disorders affecting their ability to consent should not be included. We understand the reviewer s concern, but we think that the risk of selection bias is really small in our study. First, because the GPS were selected at random (and the study sample actually seems to be representative of the study population, as mean age (50 vs. 53 years) and sex (men: 61% in the two groups) are similar). Second, because the patients were consecutively recruited by their GPs and only 45 patients out of 1637 refused to participate (i.e. participation rate > 97%). However, as new patients, those consulting in an emergency situation and those who did not speak French were excluded from the study, we stated in the Limitations section that «these patients might have lower levels of satisfaction and different expectations, as they are likely to have lower health or socio-economic status than patients with a planned appointment and/or those who speak French». Timing of measurement differ among patient: questionnaires were filled in before or after the visit. It would be valuable to evaluate if and to what extent this influences the results. Patients had to complete the questionnaire in the waiting room, but could do that before or after the consultation for practical reasons. We agree with the reviewer that it would have been indeed interesting to address this question. Unfortunately, we did not record this variable. We think that patients expectations are unlikely to be much affected by the timing of completion of the questionnaire (i.e. before or after the consultation), because patients views concerning expectations should not be too influenced by the current consultation. By contrast, patients satisfaction could be influenced by the recent experience with the doctor and/or the office. We therefore added a sentence about this in Limitations section. The ' expectation' questionnaire was not validated. the authors state that " the questionnaire was pretested" but it is unclear what exactly was tested. As stated in the methods section, these items, identified through a review of the literature and discussion between the members of the research team, were selected as they were considered as the most important expectations to be studied. The formulation of the questions was based on the formulation used in previous studies when available in the methods section (see bibliography) and then they were translated into French by a
5 native French speaker. In addition, all the questions concerning the importance given to equipment, appearance/cleanliness and accessibility/availability were built on the same model, i.e. the model of the satisfaction questions (5 point Likert scale). The questionnaire was pretested on a population similar to the study population and feedback was obtained from the responders (n=20 for patients and 8 for GPs) in order to identify any comprehension problem and difficulties patients and GPs may meet in responding to the questions. Then, we modified the questionnaire through discussion between the members of the research team. Finally, we pre-tested the new version of the questionnaire. We also re-administered the same questionnaire to a small number of participants at 2 weeks interval to make sure the questionnaire was reliable in time. We slightly modified our Methods section to better reflect this. The outcome variable for the logistic regression ambiguous and not clearly described. Why did the authors dichotomize the outcome? A major drawback is that they lose important information. We tried to improve the description as follows: Multiple logistic regression models were carried out to identify which doctor factors were independently associated with the ability to correctly evaluate patients satisfaction, assessed either as overall satisfaction or as the mean of all satisfaction items. These models allow for intra-group correlation, relaxing the usual requirement that the observations be independent. The dependant variable was a binary variable coded as 1 when the difference between patient and doctor satisfaction was considered small (< 0.5) or 0 when the difference was considered large ( 0.5, i.e. GP failed to identify patients views). We agree with the reviewer that we lose some information by dichotomizing the outcome, but we think that Odds Ratio are simpler to interpret and more explicit to the reader than betas from a multiple linear regression model. Please describe which variables were included in the multivariate model. All variables listed in the table or another approach? We included all variables listed in the table. We added this information in Table 4. Results: please include how many patients were approached. Correlations are missing. We stated in the results section that 1637 patients accepted to participate and 45 denied. Therefore 1682 ( ) patients were asked to participate. Unfortunately, we do not understand what the reviewer means here by «correlations are missing. Discussion: Relevant literature and a theoretical explanation for the findings are lacking. Recommendations for clinical practice are not sufficiently described. We added more recent references. We have provided several theoretical explanations for our findings, as detailed from line 6 of our discussion section. We have added the following subheading before conclusions: Implications for clinical practice and research: An explicit exploration of patients expectations about the practice and their satisfaction could guide GPs in their daily clinical work and help them identify areas for improvement more specifically. Future research should provide guidance about how this can best be done. Reviewer Name Laurent Letrilliart Institution and Country Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, France Please state any competing interests or state None declared : None declared
6 Please leave your comments for the authors below General comments This article describes and compares patients expectations and satisfaction and the corresponding perceptions of their GP. It shows an overestimation of patients expectations and an underestimation of patients satisfaction by GPs. Certified GPs have more accurate assessments than others. The findings regarding patients expectations are original, but the stakes are not so clear and the methods used raise some questions. Specific comments Abstract Mean patients age is likely to be 54 years rather than 64, according to the figure reported in the results section. Sorry for the typo. We replaced 64 by 54 in the abstract. How the main outcomes were measured should be mentioned. We stated in the methods section that patients completed a questionnaire containing questions about their satisfaction level with and expectations from their GPs, and that GPs were also asked to complete a questionnaire containing questions about their perceptions of their patients views. In other words, as stated in the methods section, «GPS were asked to imagine how their patients would have responded and to score the items accordingly». We also explained that the same scales were used for patients and their GPs, and that paired t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare patients views with GPs perceptions. All data are shown in Table 2 and 3. We tried to improve the description of the outcome for the logistic regression as follows: Multiple logistic regression models were carried out to identify which doctor factors were independently associated with the ability to correctly evaluate patients satisfaction, assessed either as overall satisfaction or as the mean of all satisfaction items. These models allow for intra-group correlation, relaxing the usual requirement that the observations be independent. The dependant variable was a binary variable coded as 1 when the difference between patient and doctor satisfaction was considered small (< 0.5) or 0 when the difference was considered large ( 0.5, i.e. GP failed to identify patients views). Introduction The introduction should be better constructed, by separating the presentation of the two issues addressed in the study (patients expectations and satisfaction, respectively), before devising their articulation. We tried to improve the construction of our introduction. Patients «involvement in decision about their care» refers to another issue, and looks off topic. We agree with the reviewer and removed this from our introduction. Methods What is the «local research ethics committee»? We corrected this into «the research protocol was approved by the ethics committee for research in ambulatory care in Geneva The data collected were focused on expectations and satisfaction about organisational aspects, and
7 did not take into account other important aspects of care such as patient-physician communication or technical procedures. The authors should justify this choice. We understand the reviewer s remark. We chose to focus on organizational aspects of care because in Switzerland, as in many other countries, there is currently a debate about best models of care (and in particular group versus small or solo practices). We thought it would therefore be interesting to compare patients expectations and GPs assessment of their expectations on this particular theme. In addition, the questionnaire was already relatively long. Other aspects of care are, of course, also important to consider, but quality of the data could have been poor if we included more items in our questionnaire. It seems that the patient clustering effect has not been considered in the analyses, in particular by using a multilevel model, which should be argued. We took the cluster effect into account for the sample size calculation (see Methods section); in addition, we used multiple logistic regression models that allow for intragroup correlation, relaxing the usual requirement that the observations be independent. We added this information in the Methods section. Now, the data presented in Table 4 take into account the clustering of the data. It is hard to understand why the factors associated with an accurate assessment of patients expectations have not been evaluated also in a multivariate model. The paper already presents many data and 4 Tables. Table 1 is useful, as it presents patients sociodemographic characteristics. Our most important findings are shown in Table 2 (patients satisfaction and GPs perceptions of their patients satisfaction) and 3 (patients expectations and GPs perceptions of their patients expectations). We think that the data shown in Table 4 (GPs characteristics associated with the ability of the GPs of to correctly evaluating patients scores in multivariable analysis) are secondary results. We only used overall satisfaction (and mean of all satisfaction items) to carry out these analyses, because overall satisfaction is a well-known and often used variable in many previous studies, whereas mean of all satisfaction items could be considered as a surrogate marker for satisfaction items in general (the table would have been too complicated with seven satisfaction variables). Therefore, we decided not to perform multivariable analyses with 15 (!) expectation items in addition. Results In tables 2 and 3, the duplication of the results in terms of numbers of patients evaluation more, less or equally favourable than GPs is not really needed. We think that these data could be useful to the reader, first because they are another and simple way of representing GPs perception of their patients views (comparison between «number of patients with evaluations more favourable than GPs think» and «number of patients with evaluations less favourable than GPs think» instead of comparison between «patients evaluations (mean)» and «GPs perceptions of patients evaluations (mean)». Second, because these data allow explaining to the reader which approach is used to carry out Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, as p-value Wilcoxon signed-rank tests are shown in the table. We are happy for the Editor to decide if he/she prefers to keep or to remove these data. In addition, the mean difference between patients and GPs evaluations should be presented in these tables, in order to describe its direction and size, for all variables but ordinal ones. We think, that the mean difference between patients evaluations and GPs perceptions of patients evaluations, as well as its direction and size, would unnecessarily complicate our table, because it
8 would be easily calculated by the reader, as patients evaluations and GPs perceptions of patients evaluations are shown. For example, for overall satisfaction level, as patients evaluation mean is 4.63 and GPs perception of patients evaluation mean is 3.98, the difference between patients evaluations and GPs perceptions of patients evaluations is If we can choose we would prefer to keep the data concerning the number of patients with evaluations more/less/equally favorable than GPs think, rather than adding the mean difference between patients and GPs evaluations. In table 3, the five items exploring accessibility and availability could presumably be analysed as ordinal variables, using a rank test. Indeed, these five items have been explored using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (see Table 3 for these data). Paired t tests were not applicable, as the individual differences were not normally distributed (see Methods section and footnote 1 in Table 3). Discussion Reasons why physicians should assess patients general expectations/satisfaction rather than expectations/satisfaction relating to the particular consultation should be addressed. Our objective was to assess whether GPs were able to predict their patients satisfaction with the care they provide in general, as well as their expectations in general, because for practical reasons the questionnaires were often completed before the consultation. However, we think that the reviewer s remark is interesting and could be the aim of another study. The influence of physician s certification, which is an original finding, should be better emphasized and interpreted. In particular, are there some certification criteria that cover the organisational factors considered in the study? The sample size of GPs should actually have nothing to do with this finding, as it is taken into account by the statistical test. The finding that uncertified GPs had less ability to correctly evaluate patients views could be explained in several ways. First, uncertified GPs might have (voluntarily or not) altered their perception, because they thought that their patients were less satisfied, as they were uncertified. Second, certified doctors usually acquired certification after training in university clinics where organizational aspects of care are often discussed. Third, as certification usually means additional training and qualifications, certified doctors could also be more skilled at accurately estimating their patients satisfaction level and their expectations. We slightly modified the paragraph accordingly. Note that this finding was only shortly discussed for two reasons. First, as it was based on a small sample size (23 GPs agreed to participate in the study, and only 3 (!) were uncertified), this is really difficult to interpret. In addition, certification status is a contextual factor (specific to Switzerland), explaining why its influence on the outcome is probably not generalizable to other countries, and is probably not an interesting finding for non Swiss readers. Which proportions of eligible patients were finally excluded from the study? We stated in the results section that 1637 patients accepted to participate and 45 denied. Therefore 45 / ( ) patients, i.e. 2.7%, refused to participate. This information is stated in the Results section: «the resulting participation rate being above 97%». To assess a possible selection bias of the participating GPs, they should be compared with the GP population in Geneva for variables such as age, gender and certification status.
9 650 GPs practise in the canton of Geneva. The participating GPs (i.e. 23/650) seem to be representative of the study population. We therefore added the following sentence in the results section: «It is worth noting that the sample of 23 GPs who agreed to participate seems to be representative of the study population (n=650), as mean age (50 vs. 53 years) and sex (men: 61% in the two groups) are similar». We are sorry, but certification status is not available for the study population. The social desirability bias that may apply to patients assessments is likely to be unintentional rather than intentional. We thank the reviewer for this remark. We therefore removed «intentionally» from the limitations section, changing «therefore the patients could have intentionally overestimated their satisfaction levels» into «therefore the patients could have overestimated their satisfaction levels». Conclusion Patient satisfaction is possibly, but not certainly, related to better outcomes. We modified our conclusion according to the reviewer s remark, changing «As patient satisfaction and meeting patients expectations is related to better outcomes» into «As patient satisfaction and meeting patients expectations seems to be related to better outcomes». REVIEWER REVIEW RETURNED GENERAL COMMENTS VERSION 2 REVIEW Nienke Bleijenberg Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands 27-Apr-2015 The previous comments are adequately addressed. Objective is clearly stated and adapted correctly. Methods: On page 7, the authors describe that the questionnaire was pretested. Can the authors elaborate more on what was exactly tested, how, and what the feedback was and which items were improved? Data collection is clear. Sample size calculation is somewhat unclear. Why was the prevalence of the patient satisfaction items used to estimate the sample size? There is no reference why 400 patients would haven been sufficient. Research ethics: Although the study has been approved by the ethics committee for research in ambulatory care in Geneva, patients do not have time to think whether or not they would like to participate. Asking patients before or after their GP visit may have resulted in high participation rate. This has been addressed in the discussion. Limitation that should be described is that the expectation questionnaire is not validated (yet). VERSION 2 AUTHOR RESPONSE > Reviewer Name N. Bleijenberg > Institution and Country University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. > Please state any competing interests or state None declared : none declared.
10 > > Please leave your comments for the authors below > The previous comments are adequately addressed. > Objective is clearly stated and adapted correctly. > Methods: > On page 7, the authors describe that the questionnaire was pretested. Can the authors elaborate more on what was exactly tested, how, and what the feedback was and which items were improved? We added some information about the pretest of the questionnaire: The questionnaire was pretested in a GP s practice (PS). The respondents (20 patients & 8 GPs) provided general feedback on the questionnaire and the cover letter, as well as comments on the content and wording of individual questions, as a result of which some questions were modified accordingly. > Data collection is clear. > Sample size calculation is somewhat unclear. Why was the prevalence of the patient satisfaction items used to estimate the sample size? There is no reference why 400 patients would haven been sufficient. As previous data in similar settings were lacking, it is common practice to estimate sample size from the desired precision of a confidence interval around an expected prevalence. We assumed a prevalence of 50% of the patients expectations items. The number 400 arises directly from computation as follows: a sample size of 384 produces a twosided 95% confidence interval with a width equal to 0.10 (a precision of 5% for the half confidence interval), when the sample proportion is 0.50, 50% corresponding to an average score of 2.5 on a 5 point Likert scale (ref: Newcombe, R. G 'Two-Sided Confidence Intervals for the Single Proportion: Comparison of Seven Methods. Statistics in Medicine, 17, pp ). So we changed the text as follows: From computation a sample size of 400 patients would have been sufficient.... In addition, we added the expected prevalence (=50%) of the patients expectations items. > Research ethics: Although the study has been approved by the ethics committee for research in ambulatory care in Geneva, patients do not have time to think whether or not they would like to participate. Asking patients before or after their GP visit may have resulted in high participation rate. This has been addressed in the discussion. We indeed addressed this limitation in our discussion. > Limitation that should be described is that the expectation questionnaire is not validated (yet). We agree with the reviewer and included the following sentence in the limitation section: Finally, the assessment of patients expectations used a non-validated questionnaire. However the selection of items for this questionnaire was based on a literature review and we chose a similar response format to that of the well-validated Europep questionnaire assessing patient satisfaction. In addition, the questionnaire was pre-tested among patients and GPs
PEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS VERSION 1 - REVIEW. Veronika Williams University of Oxford, UK 07-Dec-2015
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/resources/checklist.pdf)
More informationPEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS VERSION 1 - REVIEW. Ball State University
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form (see an example) and are provided with free text boxes to
More informationTitle: Identifying work ability promoting factors for home care aides and assistant nurses
Author's response to reviews Title: Identifying work ability promoting factors for home care aides and assistant nurses Authors: Agneta Larsson (agneta.larsson@ltu.se) Lena Karlqvist (lena.karlqvist@ltu.se)
More informationPEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS TITLE (PROVISIONAL)
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/resources/checklist.pdf)
More informationTitle:Continuity of GP care is associated with lower use of complementary and alternative medical providers A population-based cross-sectional survey
Author's response to reviews Title:Continuity of GP care is associated with lower use of complementary and alternative medical providers A population-based cross-sectional survey Authors: Anne Helen Hansen
More informationTitle: Elevated depressive symptoms in metabolic syndrome in a general population of Japanese men: a cross-sectional study
Author's response to reviews Title: Elevated depressive symptoms in metabolic syndrome in a general population of Japanese men: a cross-sectional study Authors: Atsuko Sekita (atsekita@med.kyushu-u.ac.jp)
More informationPEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS. Zou, Yuming; Li, Quan; Xu, Weidong VERSION 1 - REVIEW
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/resources/checklist.pdf)
More informationThe Cochrane Collaboration
The Cochrane Collaboration Version and date: V1, 29 October 2012 Guideline notes for consumer referees You have been invited to provide consumer comments on a Cochrane Review or Cochrane Protocol. This
More informationPEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS VERSION 1 - REVIEW. Adrian Barnett Queensland University of Technology, Australia 10-Oct-2014
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/resources/checklist.pdf)
More informationISA 540, Auditing Accounting Estimates, Including Fair Value Accounting Estimates, and Related Disclosures Issues and Task Force Recommendations
Agenda Item 1-A ISA 540, Auditing Accounting Estimates, Including Fair Value Accounting Estimates, and Related Disclosures Issues and Task Force Recommendations Introduction 1. Since the September 2016
More informationTitle: Dengue Score: a proposed diagnostic predictor of pleural effusion and/or ascites in adult with dengue infection
Reviewer s report Title: Dengue Score: a proposed diagnostic predictor of pleural effusion and/or ascites in adult with dengue infection Version: 0 Date: 11 Feb 2016 Reviewer: Anthony Jin Shun Chua Reviewer's
More informationPEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS TITLE (PROVISIONAL)
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/resources/checklist.pdf)
More informationTitle:Video-confidence: a qualitative exploration of videoconferencing for psychiatric emergencies
Author's response to reviews Title:Video-confidence: a qualitative exploration of videoconferencing for psychiatric emergencies Authors: Marianne V Trondsen (marianne.trondsen@telemed.no) Stein Roald Bolle
More informationPEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS TITLE (PROVISIONAL)
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/resources/checklist.pdf)
More informationConflict of interest in randomised controlled surgical trials: Systematic review, qualitative and quantitative analysis
Reviewer Assessment Open Access P. Probst, K. Grummich, U. Klaiber, P. Knebel, A.Ulrich, M. W. Büchler, and M. K. Diener* Conflict of interest in randomised controlled surgical trials: Systematic review,
More informationPEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS TITLE (PROVISIONAL)
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/resources/checklist.pdf)
More informationAuthor's response to reviews
Author's response to reviews Title: Gender differences in Greek centenarians. A cross-sectional nation-wide study, examining multiple socio-demographic and personality factors and health locus of control.
More informationPEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/resources/checklist.pdf)
More informationTips on Successful Writing and Getting Published Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc, FACC, FAHA Professor of Medicine Editor, JAMA Internal Medicine
Tips on Successful Writing and Getting Published Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc, FACC, FAHA Professor of Medicine Editor, JAMA Internal Medicine Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc and 1 Helpful Hints!!! Correct journal
More informationTitle: Healthy snacks at the checkout counter: A lab and field study on the impact of shelf arrangement and assortment structure on consumer choices
Author's response to reviews Title: Healthy snacks at the checkout counter: A lab and field study on the impact of shelf arrangement and assortment structure on consumer choices Authors: Ellen van Kleef
More informationPEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS VERSION 1 - REVIEW
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form (see an example) and are provided with free text boxes to
More informationTitle:Decisions on statin therapy by patients' opinions about survival gains: Cross sectional survey of general practitioners.
Author's response to reviews Title:Decisions on statin therapy by patients' opinions about survival gains: Cross sectional survey of general practitioners. Authors: Peder Andreas Halvorsen (peder.halvorsen@kraftlaget.no)
More informationTitle: Exposure of bakery and pastry apprentices to airborne flour dust using PM2.5 and PM10 personal samplers
Author's response to reviews Title: Exposure of bakery and pastry apprentices to airborne flour dust using PM2.5 and PM10 personal samplers Authors: Estelle Mounier-Geyssant (estellemounier@yahoo.fr) Jean-Francois
More informationTitle: Intention-to-treat and transparency of related practices in randomized, controlled trials of anti-infectives
Author s response to reviews Title: Intention-to-treat and transparency of related practices in randomized, controlled trials of anti-infectives Authors: Robert Beckett (rdbeckett@manchester.edu) Kathryn
More informationPEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS VERSION 1 - REVIEW. Fiona Warren University of Exeter Medical School (UEMS), UK 01-Feb-2016
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/resources/checklist.pdf)
More informationPEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/resources/checklist.pdf)
More informationTitle: Risser Patient Satisfaction Scale: A Validation study in Greek Cancer Patients
Author's response to reviews Title: Risser Patient Satisfaction Scale: A Validation study in Greek Cancer Patients Authors: Andreas I Charalambous (andreas.charalambous@cut.ac.cy) Theodoula Adamakidou
More informationEQUATOR Network: promises and results of reporting guidelines
EQUATOR Network: promises and results of reporting guidelines Doug Altman The EQUATOR Network Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Oxford, UK Key principles of research publications A published research
More informationPEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS TITLE (PROVISIONAL)
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/resources/checklist.pdf)
More informationTitle: Prevalence of sexual, physical and emotional abuse in the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study
Author's response to reviews Title: Prevalence of sexual, physical and emotional abuse in the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study Authors: Marie F Sorbo (marie.flem.sorbo@ntnu.no) Hilde Grimstad (hilde.grimstad@ntnu.no)
More informationTitle: Evaluation of the Housing First Program in patients with severe mental disorders in France: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Author's response to reviews Title: Evaluation of the Housing First Program in patients with severe mental disorders in France: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial : Aurelie Tinland (laurent.boyer@ap-hm.fr)
More informationTitle:Modern contraceptive use among sexually active men in Uganda: Does discussion with a health worker matter?
Author's response to reviews Title:Modern contraceptive use among sexually active men in Uganda: Does discussion with a health worker matter? Authors: Allen Kabagenyi Ms. (allenka79@yahoo.com) Patricia
More informationPEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS TITLE (PROVISIONAL)
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/resources/checklist.pdf)
More informationTitle: A Central Storage Facility to Reduce Pesticide Suicides- A Feasibility Study from India
Author's response to reviews Title: A Central Storage Facility to Reduce Pesticide Suicides- A Feasibility Study from India Authors: Lakshmi Vijayakumar (lakshmi@vijayakumars.com) Jeyaseelan Lakshmanan
More informationTitle: Who does not participate in a follow-up postal study? A survey of infertile couples treated by in vitro fertilization
Author's response to reviews Title: Who does not participate in a follow-up postal study? A survey of infertile couples treated by in vitro fertilization Authors: Pénélope Troude (penelope.troude@inserm.fr)
More informationTitle: Use of food labels by adolescents to make healthier choices on snacks: a cross sectional study from Sri Lanka
Author s response to reviews Title: Use of food labels by adolescents to make healthier choices on snacks: a cross sectional study from Sri Lanka Authors: Ishanka Talagala (drmaheshkeerthi@gmail.com;drishanka@gmail.com)
More informationJonathan Williman University of Otago, Christchurch New Zealand 06-Nov-2013
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form (see an example) and are provided with free text boxes to
More informationTitle: Home Exposure to Arabian Incense (Bakhour) and Asthma Symptoms in Children: A Community Survey in Two Regions in Oman
Author's response to reviews Title: Home Exposure to Arabian Incense (Bakhour) and Asthma Symptoms in Children: A Community Survey in Two Regions in Oman Authors: Omar A Al-Rawas (orawas@squ.edu.om) Abdullah
More information1. Evaluate the methodological quality of a study with the COSMIN checklist
Answers 1. Evaluate the methodological quality of a study with the COSMIN checklist We follow the four steps as presented in Table 9.2. Step 1: The following measurement properties are evaluated in the
More informationEPF s response to the European Commission s public consultation on the "Summary of Clinical Trial Results for Laypersons"
EPF s response to the European Commission s public consultation on the "Summary of Clinical Trial Results for Laypersons" August 2016 This document received funding under an operating grant from the European
More informationPEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS TITLE (PROVISIONAL)
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Paediatrics Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form and are provided with free text boxes to elaborate
More informationTitle: Protocol-based management of older adults with hip fractures in Delhi, India: a feasibility study
Reviewer s report Title: Protocol-based management of older adults with hip fractures in Delhi, India: a feasibility study Version: 0 Date: 16 Nov 2015 Reviewer: Cristin Ryan Reviewer's report: This paper
More informationPEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS TITLE (PROVISIONAL)
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/resources/checklist.pdf)
More informationPage 4. Line 7 and 8. Do these stats refer to children worldwide? Please clarify.
Reviewer s report Title: Management of severe acute malnutrition by cow milk in resource contraints settings: experience of the Nutritional Centre of the University Clinics of Graben Version: 0 Date: 27
More informationPEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/resources/checklist.pdf)
More informationCochrane Breast Cancer Group
Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Version and date: V3.2, September 2013 Intervention Cochrane Protocol checklist for authors This checklist is designed to help you (the authors) complete your Cochrane Protocol.
More informationTitle: Socioeconomic conditions and number of pain sites in women
Author's response to reviews Title: Socioeconomic conditions and number of pain sites in women Authors: Finn E Skjeldestad (fisk@fhi.no) Toril Rannestad (Toril.Rannestad@hist.no) Version: 2 Date: 17 January
More informationTitle: Defensive coping and health-related quality of life in Chronic Kidney Disease: a cross-sectional study
Author's response to reviews Title: Defensive coping and health-related quality of life in Chronic Kidney Disease: a cross-sectional study Authors: Anna Kaltsouda (akalts@cc.uoi.gr) Petros Skapinakis (p.skapinakis@gmail.com)
More informationJose Merino (Chair), Georg Roeggla, Tiago Villaneuva, John Fletcher. Amy Price, Elisabeth Loder. Jamie Kirhham (statisticians), Rubin Minhas
BMJ.2017.037871 "Efficacy of drugs used in preventive chemotherapy against soil-transmitted helminths: systematic review and network meta-analysis" *********************************************************************************************************
More informationPEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS TITLE (PROVISIONAL)
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form (see an example) and are provided with free text boxes to
More informationReviewer s report. Version: 0 Date: 17 Dec Reviewer: Julia Marcus. Reviewer's report:
Reviewer s report Title: Is there continued evidence for an association between abacavir usage and myocardial infarction risk in individuals with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)?: a cohort collaboration
More informationTitle: Determinants of intention to get tested for STI/HIV among the Surinamese and Antilleans in the Netherlands: results of an online survey
Author's response to reviews Title: Determinants of intention to get tested for STI/HIV among the Surinamese and Antilleans in the Netherlands: results of an online survey Authors: Alvin H Westmaas (alvin.westmaas@maastrichtuniversity.nl)
More informationDON M. PALLAIS, CPA 14 Dahlgren Road Richmond, Virginia Telephone: (804) Fax: (804)
DON M. PALLAIS, CPA 14 Dahlgren Road Richmond, Virginia 23233 Telephone: (804) 784-0884 Fax: (804) 784-0885 Office of the Secretary PCAOB 1666 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-2083 Gentlemen: November
More informationBMJ - Decision on Manuscript ID BMJ
BMJ - Decision on Manuscript ID BMJ.2018.043414 Body: 19-Feb-2018 Dear Mr. Lee Manuscript ID BMJ.2018.043414 entitled "Predicted lean body mass, fat mass, and all-cause and cause-specific mortality in
More informationAuthor's response to reviews
Author's response to reviews Title: Validation of Doloplus-2 among nonverbal nursing home patients - An evaluation of Doloplus-2 in a clinical setting An evaluating of Doloplus-2 in a clinical setting
More informationAuthor's response to reviews
Author's response to reviews Title: Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care testing for acute coronary syndromes, heart failure and thromboembolic events in primary care: a cluster-randomised controlled trial
More informationPEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS TITLE (PROVISIONAL)
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Paediatrics Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form and are provided with free text boxes to elaborate
More informationTitle: Attitude toward Contraception and Abortion among Curacao women. Ineffective contraception due to limited sexual education?
Author's response to reviews Title: Attitude toward Contraception and Abortion among Curacao women. Ineffective contraception due to limited sexual education? Authors: Marian J. van den Brink (marianvdbrink@hotmail.com)
More informationAuthor's response to reviews
Author's response to reviews Title:Mental health problems in the 10th grade and non-completion of upper secondary school: the mediating role of grades in a population-based longitudinal study Authors:
More informationPEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/resources/checklist.pdf)
More informationComment response document for NPA
Comment response document for NPA 145-11 A total of 20 commnets were received from 4 JAA-NAAs, 1 JAA Central Division, 2 Euro Associations, 8 JAR145 organisations, 1 USA Manufacturer and 1 European Operator.
More informationAuthor s response to reviews
Author s response to reviews Title: Lifestyle-related factors that explain disaster-induced changes in socioeconomic status and poor subjective health: a cross-sectional study from the Fukushima Health
More informationPEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS VERSION 1 - REVIEW
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/resources/checklist.pdf)
More informationPlease revise your paper to respond to all of the comments by the reviewers. Their reports are available at the end of this letter, below.
Dear editor and dear reviewers Thank you very much for the additional comments and suggestions. We have modified the manuscript according to the comments below. We have also updated the literature search
More informationReport to the editors of the journal
Report to the editors of the journal I would first like to thank you, madam / sir, for this collaboration with our journal Interventions économiques / Papers in Political Economy. Those invited to do a
More informationTitle: Correlates of quality of life of pre-obese and obese patients: a pharmacy-based cross-sectional survey
Author's response to reviews Title: Correlates of quality of life of pre-obese and obese patients: a pharmacy-based cross-sectional survey Authors: Laurent Laforest (laurent.laforest@chu-lyon.fr) Eric
More information2. Could you insert a reference, proving your statement on p. 5, l. 66/67?
Author s response to reviews Title: Representative survey on idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields in Taiwan and comparison with the international literature Authors:
More informationMJ - Decision on Manuscript ID BMJ
MJ - Decision on Manuscript ID BMJ.2018.044966 Body: 12-Jul-2018 Dear Dr. Khandwala Manuscript ID BMJ.2018.044966 entitled "The Association of Paternal Age and Perinatal Outcomes between 2007 and 2016
More informationAccepted refereed manuscript of:
Accepted refereed manuscript of: Zwarenstein M, Treweek S & Loudon K (2017) PRECIS-2 helps researchers design more applicable RCTs while CONSORT Extension for Pragmatic Trials helps knowledge users decide
More informationPEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS VERSION 1 - REVIEW. Randi Selmer Senior Researcher Norwegian Institute of Public Health Norway
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form (see an example) and are provided with free text boxes to
More informationPublishing Your Study: Tips for Young Investigators. Learning Objectives 7/9/2013. Eric B. Bass, MD, MPH
Publishing Your Study: Tips for Young Investigators Eric B. Bass, MD, MPH Learning Objectives To apply a logical approach to organizing & presenting your work in a manuscript To recognize the importance
More informationDear Mrs. Burch and editors of the BMJ,
Dear Mrs. Burch and editors of the BMJ, We are pleased that our manuscript entitled: Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse
More informationAuthor's response to reviews
Author's response to reviews Title:How differently do physicians and patients evaluate the current status of primary care in Korea?: A qualitative study using focus group discussion Authors: Minsu Ock
More informationPrinciples of publishing
Principles of publishing Issues of authorship, duplicate publication and plagiarism in scientific journal papers can cause considerable conflict among members of research teams and embarrassment for both
More informationManuscript ID BMJ R1 entitled "Education and coronary heart disease: a Mendelian randomization study"
BMJ - Decision on Manuscript ID BMJ.2017.03 7504.R1 Body: 11-May-2017 Dear Dr. Tillmann Manuscript ID BMJ.2017.037504.R1 entitled "Education and coronary heart disease: a Mendelian randomization study"
More informationTitle:Problematic computer gaming, console-gaming, and internet use among adolescents: new measurement tool and association with time use
Author's response to reviews Title:Problematic computer gaming, console-gaming, and internet use among adolescents: new measurement tool and association with time use Authors: Mette Rasmussen (mera@niph.dk)
More information9-A ISA 260 (Revised and Redrafted) Significant Issues
IAASB Main Agenda (September 2007) Page 2007 2777 Agenda Item 9-A ISA 260 (Revised and Redrafted) Significant Issues NOTE: Paragraph references written as (old) are to paragraph numbers as they appeared
More informationAuthor's response to reviews
Author's response to reviews Title:A multilevel analysis to explain self-reported adverse health effects and adaptation to heat: A cross-sectional survey in the deprived areas of 9 Canadian cities Authors:
More informationAssignment 4: True or Quasi-Experiment
Assignment 4: True or Quasi-Experiment Objectives: After completing this assignment, you will be able to Evaluate when you must use an experiment to answer a research question Develop statistical hypotheses
More informationPEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS TITLE (PROVISIONAL)
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form (see an example) and are provided with free text boxes to
More informationPEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS VERSION 1 - REVIEW
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form (see an example) and are provided with free text boxes to
More informationChapter 5 Analyzing Quantitative Research Literature
Activity for Chapter 5 Directions: Locate an original report of a quantitative research, preferably on a topic you are reviewing, and answer the following questions. 1. What characteristics of the report
More informationAuthor's response to reviews
Author's response to reviews Title:Musculoskeletal pain in Arctic indigenous and non-indigenous adolescents, prevalence and associations with psychosocial factors: A population-based study. Authors: Christian
More informationAuthor s response to reviews
Author s response to reviews Title: Comparison of VividTrac, Airtraq, King Vision, Macintosh Laryngoscope and a Custom-Made Videolaryngoscope for Difficult and Normal Airways in Mannequins by Novices Authors:
More informationReviewer s report. Version: 0 Date: 11 Apr Reviewer: Ruth Kipping. Reviewer's report:
Reviewer s report Title: Translating an early childhood obesity prevention program for local community implementation: A Case Study of the Melbourne InFANT Program Version: 0 Date: 11 Apr 2016 Reviewer:
More informationWhat are Indexes and Scales
ISSUES Exam results are on the web No student handbook, will have discussion questions soon Next exam will be easier but want everyone to study hard Biggest problem was question on Research Design Next
More informationPEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/resources/checklist.pdf)
More informationVERDIN MANUSCRIPT REVIEW HISTORY REVISION NOTES FROM AUTHORS (ROUND 2)
1 VERDIN MANUSCRIPT REVIEW HISTORY REVISION NOTES FROM AUTHORS (ROUND 2) Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to revise our paper. We have revised the manuscript according to the editors and
More informationStatistical reports Regression, 2010
Statistical reports Regression, 2010 Niels Richard Hansen June 10, 2010 This document gives some guidelines on how to write a report on a statistical analysis. The document is organized into sections that
More informationManuscript ID BMJ entitled "Benzodiazepines and the Risk of Allcause Mortality in Adults: A Cohort Study"
12-Jan-2017 Dear Dr. Patorno Manuscript ID BMJ.2016.036319 entitled "Benzodiazepines and the Risk of Allcause Mortality in Adults: A Cohort Study" Thank you for sending us your paper. We sent it for external
More informationTitle: Reliability and validity of the adolescent stress questionnaire in a sample of European adolescents - the HELENA study
Author's response to reviews Title: Reliability and validity of the adolescent stress questionnaire in a sample of European adolescents - the HELENA study Authors: Tineke De Vriendt (tineke.devriendt@ugent.be)
More informationAppendix A: Literature search strategy
Appendix A: Literature search strategy The following databases were searched: Cochrane Library Medline Embase CINAHL World Health organisation library Index Medicus for the Eastern Mediterranean Region(IMEMR),
More informationAuthor's response to reviews
Author's response to reviews Title: Pneumococcal vaccination and otitis media in Australian Aboriginal infants: comparison of two birth cohorts before and after introduction of vaccination Authors: Grant
More informationGlobal Harmonization Task Force SG3 Comments and Recommendations ISO/DIS 9001: 2000 and ISO/DIS 9000: 2000 And Revision of ISO and 13488
Page 1 of 6 Global Harmonization Task Force SG3 ISO/DIS 9001: 2000 and ISO/DIS 9000: 2000 And Revision of ISO 13485 and 13488 GENERAL COMMENTS The Global Harmonization Task Force Study Group Three (GHTF
More informationThe influence of (in)congruence of communicator expertise and trustworthiness on acceptance of CCS technologies
The influence of (in)congruence of communicator expertise and trustworthiness on acceptance of CCS technologies Emma ter Mors 1,2, Mieneke Weenig 1, Naomi Ellemers 1, Dancker Daamen 1 1 Leiden University,
More informationAuthor's response to reviews
Author's response to reviews Title: Prevalence of psychological distress and mental disorders, and use of mental health services in the epidemiological catchment area of Montreal South-West Authors: Jean
More informationAuthor's response to reviews
Author's response to reviews Title: Gender, ethnicity, health behaviour & self-rated health in Singapore Authors: Wei-Yen Lim (Lim_Wei_Yen@moh.gov.sg) Stefan Ma (Stefan_Ma@moh.gov.sg) Derrick Heng (Derrick_Heng@moh.gov.sg)
More informationPEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS VERSION 1 - REVIEW. I have no competing interests 17-Feb-2013
PEER REVIEW HISTORY BMJ Open publishes all reviews undertaken for accepted manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist review form (see an example) and are provided with free text boxes to
More informationCanada would provide a proposed draft definition for consideration by the next session based on these comments.
E Agenda Item 7 CX/FL 11/39/14-Rev1 JOINT FAO/WHO FOOD STANDARDS PROGRAM CODEX COMMITTEE ON FOOD LABELLING Thirty-ninth Session Québec City, Canada 9 13 May 2011 Proposed Draft Definition of Nutrient Reference
More informationAuthor's response to reviews
Author's response to reviews Title: A multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, parallel-group study of the effectiveness of a pharmacist-acquired medication history in an emergency department
More information