Reviewer's report 
 The information needs of women diagnosed with Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome - Implications for Title: 
treatment and health outcomes 
 1  18 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 Margaret Nusbaum Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General: 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
1. Is the question posed by the authors new and well defined? 
Based on the literature review presented in the manuscript, the question posed by the authors appears to 
be new. The ultimate goal of/point to the manuscript needs to be further clarified. Perhaps: Given questions 
regarding the reliability/legitimacy, adequacy, and agenda/intention behind various sources of potential 
information along with the interest, desire, needs, and benefits for individuals to have access to information regarding their health and/or health condition(s), our hopes are that guidelines can be formulated which assist health care providers, consumers, and producers in assuring the highest quality of information for the 
greatest benefit of individual consumers. 
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described, and are sufficient details provided to replicate the work? 
A medical editor could probably be of great assistance in describing the methods, adding further details, 
and providing sufficient detail through working with the authors and the literature to clarify what was done 
that mirrored past published/unpublished qualitative work and what is unique to this particular research project. For example, it is unclear what was piloted yet this sentence appears: After the piloting, the 
schedule was further modified and, consistent with a grounded approach, further developed as concepts, 
categories and themes were identified (16). Outcome themes are mentioned, such as, environment of uncertainty, prolonged pathway to diagnosis/validation of the illness/syndrome/experience, self-empowerment through educating oneself/information-seeking, educating/attempting to educate their 
HCP/sharing information with others, expectations from/experiences with HCPs, experiences/preferences 
as to sources of information, yet the manuscript doesn’t flow smoothly through these themes. 
That the first author, herself, had personal experience with PCOS and was herself a subject/participant, 
thus, seemingly, facilitating the dialogue with the subjects, is an interesting approach. Although clearly not 
unique to group work, as in recovering alcoholics counseling for Alcoholics Anonymous, I am wondering if it 
might be a unique approach to qualitative research. Thus adding additional strength to this particular project 
and noteworthy enough to further strengthening this piece by adding a literature review on this particular 
approach, noting if no literature exists, or describing that which does exist. 
3. Are the data sound and well controlled? 
I am unclear about the methodology. The statistics & methodology are not clear enough for me to try to 
adequately assess. 
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data deposition? 
Defer to journal editors. 
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported by the data? 
Early recognition of PCO/dis-ease can not only assist women/individuals in making lifestyle adaptations but may also thwart long-term sequellae….e.g. with PCOS, high potential glucose intolerance likely to benefit 
by early alterations to lifestyle (diet, exercise); fertility options (childrearing either via fertility treatment or 
adoption, or other child-free approaches to a fulfilling and creative life.) …….I think the manuscript could be 
strengthen by adding a component of not watchful waiting approach to suspected PCOS, given health 
consequences, that lifesEyle changes, & habits there-in, are best begun early rather than later. 
6. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? 
Adequate but could benefit from editorial polishing. 
7. Is the writing acceptable? 
The writing would benefit from editorial assistance, perhaps a medical writer and/or librarian. For example, this sentence is unclear: One of the few studies concerned with general health status of PCOS women examined questions important to women with 
PCOS, in order to develop a tool to assess their quality of life, assisting in evaluating treatment outcomes 
[12]. As is this: The interviews were carried out by the first author, who had previously been involved in the original nutritional study from which many of the women were recruited, as both a subject and a study coordinator [17]. 
Also, the style and format of writing is inconsistent. This sentence, for example, is not only unclear in it’s 
message but now cites the authors and year of reference: Kitzinger & Willmott (2002) concentrated on 
women’s own 
experience of PCOS within a feminist framework, and found PCOS deeply stigmatising, and associated 
with considerable stress [13]. 
Spelling errors, e.g. Table 3: • What have you learnt form this information? 
Further detail is needed regarding the sources of data from which the ethnic variations in symptoms are 
obtained…Instead of ‘A wide range of prevalences for different symptoms has been reported. Perhaps: ‘ 
Studies suggest symptoms may vary by ethnicity’. Then provide greater detail on the study itself. e.g. A (provide year ) study of Greek Caucasion women, age range 17 to 45 years, (n=XXX) indicated that the most common symptoms were…… 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the statistics. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'