Reviewer's report 
 The information needs of women diagnosed with Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome - Implications for Title: 
treatment and health outcomes 
 1  20 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 Zephne M. van der Spuy Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Polycystic ovary syndrome is a common endocrinopathy which is characterised by reproductive dysfunction 
and metabolic disturbances . PCOS carries the risk of longterm ill health icluding hypertension, 
cardiovascular disease and diabetes. It is essential that patients receive adequate counselling and follow-up 
and that they have sufficient knowledge of their condition , its consequences and the management required 
. 
This manuscript documents the finding of a study investigating the information women with PCOS wish to 
obtain and how they accessed this . Qualitative interviews were used and ten women with PCOS were recruited . They had been diagnosed 1 to 17 years prior to the study, had a variable reproductive history, and were recruited from a previous study on PCOS or from a support group. 
The interview schedule was appropriate and the findings largely indicate a dissatisfaction with information 
or input at their initial presentation from the health carers. While reading material was sometimes provided , 
this did not meet their needs and most of the women found the internet the best source of information. This 
study is interesting and the quoted dialogue adds a richness to the text . 
My main criticism of the study has been recognised and discussed by the authors. The women all had been 
exposed to groups/research which would have offered them considerable insights and information about 
PCOS . The majority had tertiary education which also impacted an their access to information . Also length 
of time since diagnosis would also presumably have influenced their knowledge and experience. 
In summary this group is not necessarily typical of all PCOS patients and it would be interesting to know the 
response from newly diagnosed patients and those who have not had the benefit of support /intervention. 
As the authors state these results can only be appplied to similar groups. Findings in less well resourced 
populations may be different . 
The message about lack of knowledge or helpful input from health carers is important. 
I would recommend publication after the authors have made some minor changes to the manuscript. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
I would suggest the authors review the "Background " section . The presentation of different prevalences is 
not clear and could be improved. 
In the "Results and Discussion" the last paragraph on page 10 is unclear and should be rewritten 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential 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, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests .