Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Health Care Professionals' Attitudes towards Population -Based Genetic Testing and Risk -
Stratification for Ovarian Cancer: A Cross -sectional Survey  
 
Version: 1 Date: 06 Sep 2017 
 
Reviewer:  Patricia  Moorman  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
This manuscript describes results of an on -line survey that assessed health practitioners' 
knowledge and attitudes about population -based genetic testing for ovarian cancer.  The rationale 
for the study was well -described and the results were clearly prese nted.  The work is timely 
because of the recently published results from the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer 
Screening which suggest that screening resulted in a shift to earlier stage cancer at diagnosis in a 
population of high -risk women.  
 
There  are limitations in the authors' work including the small number of respondents within the 
different practice categories and the lack of random sampling of the target practitioners in the 
study design, however, these limitations were appropriately addresse d by the authors.  
 
Overall, I have only a couple of minor comments for the authors.  First, the discussion should 
emphasize that the survey responses reflect what the practitioners expect they would do in 
specific situations, however the responses do not r eflect actual practices.  Second, the authors 
should discuss the generalizability of their findings, since it was done in the UK.  Would they 
expect that these results would be applicable to other countries where the health systems vary 
considerably from t he UK?  Along these lines, it would be useful to add the geographic location 
of the study to the abstract.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include  the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to as sess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbur sements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
respo nses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish  to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal