Reviewer's report 
 Race, rank, and satisfaction in general OB/GYN clinics Title: 
 1  3 February 2005 Version: Date: 
 Eyal Zimlichman Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors describe results of a patient satisfaction survey conducted at OB/GYN clinics at a naval 
medical center. They conclude higher ranking patients, and patients treated at a smaller satellite 
clinic, were more satisfied, while patients from Asian origin may be less satisfied. These results are not unique, and have been suggested in previous articles. However, the setting in which the study 
was conducted, in which only a few studies were performed, is indeed unique, and merits publication 
following the below mentioned revisions. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
1. How was randomization performed on distribution of questionnaires? (Methods section) 
2. The authors suggest that the clinical staffâ €™s race might explain the different satisfaction levels 
of Asian patients between the base and the satellite clinics. Surly the authors can add this 
information and discuss whether it is consistent with their hypothesis. It is indeed important to find out whether the satellite clinics staff are Asian. 3. Trying to explain the different satisfaction levels of patients between the base and the satellite 
clinics, the authors must mention the evidence that patient satisfaction is usually higher in smaller 
clinics, with fewer physicians, as was described previously both in civilian (Campbell SM et al, BMJ 2001;323:784-7) and in military settings (Mandel D et al. Am J Med Qual. 2003;18:251-5). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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. The authors should add to the limitations of the study that it was conducted in a military setting 
where communication and attitudes are affected by military status such as rank and position. A 
similar study in a civilian setting might not lead to identical results. 
2. The authors should explain table 1, as it is not readily understood. What to the authors mean by â€œyesâ € or â €œnoâ €. Please add explanation in a foot note. 
3. For non-military readers, please explain the ranks. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
1. I suggest that the authors conclude the article by suggesting recommendations for health officials, 
arising from their discussion. Such as delivering more personalized health care, as is being delivered 
to the satellite clinicâ €™s patients. The authors should try to convert their conclusions to practical 
recommendations. 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests