Reviewer's report
Title:Psychological impact, support and information needs for women with an
abnormal Pap smear: comparative results of a questionnaire in three European
countries
Version: 1Date:27 December 2010
Reviewer: Donna H. H McCree
Reviewer's report:
All comments are major compulsory revisions.
I. Abstract:
(1) Background: The last sentence is unclear and does not provide a clear
statement of the purpose.
(2) Methods: This section is underdeveloped, specifically, information on the
study population, measures, and analyses is not included.
(3) Results: It is difficult to interpret this section without a clear statement of the
purpose and methods.
(4) Discussion: It is difficult to review this section without a clear statement of the
purpose, detailed methods, and results.
II. Background
(5) 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: This statement should be modified given that
every woman who has a genital HPV infection does not develop pre-cancerous
lesions or cervical cancer.
(6) 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: This is an incomplete sentence.
(7) 1st paragraph, last sentence: Please include a citation.
(8) 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: Please modify the sentence to state that the
available literature suggests the statement. Remove the period or capitalize
“and?”
(9) 2nd paragraph: Please edit the entire paragraph for clarity.
(10) 3rd paragraph: Please clarify if this paragraph is reporting results from a
study, the literature, etc. If so, please edit for clarity.
(11) 4th paragraph, last sentence: Is this the purpose of the study reported in this
manuscript? If so, it is not stated clearly and is not congruent with the information
stated in the Abstract. Please modify.
III. Methods: This section lacks specifics.
(12) Participants: Please provide additional specifics about eligibility (age limits,
etc.) requirements.
(13) Study Design: Please provide additional specifics about the study design.
(14) Human Subjects Review: Was the study reviewed and approved by a
Human Subjects Review Board? Did the women provide informed consent for
study participation? If so, how? If not, why not? Were the women reimbursed for
time and participation? If so, please provide specifics.
(15) Questionnaire
(16) How was the questionnaire completed, i.e., paper and pen?
(17) Please provide specifics on the measure, i.e., was it quantitative, qualitative,
both? How was the measure developed? Please provide psychometrics. Please
explain “fixed responses.”
IV. Analysis: This section lacks specifics
(18) Please provide information on what analyses were conducted on which
specific measures.
V. Results: As previously stated, it is difficult to interpret this section without a
clear understanding of the purpose.
(19) 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: Please state the analyses conducted to
determine that the demographic characteristics were similar between the three
countries.
(20) 1st paragraph, last sentence: Insert the word “women” between “to” and “in.”
(21) Method of communication: Please edit the 1st sentence for clarity. Please
specify what the women were told.
(22) Feelings experienced, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs: Information in the 2nd
paragraph regarding the measures should be in the Analyses section.
(23) Impact on quality of life, 3rd sentence: Clarify “illness.”
(24) Information about the disease and treatment: Clarify “the disease.”
(25) Feelings about communication of information: Scale descriptions should be
included in the Methods section. Information on how the data were analyzed
should be included in the Analysis section.
(26) Source of information: 2nd sentence – explain “along with the media.” Last
sentence – quantify “definitely needed.” Was this a response option on the study
instrument?
VI. Discussion: This entire section should be edited for clarity. Additionally, as
previously stated, it is difficult to interpret and/or review this section without a
clear statement of the purpose and additional information on the study methods.
(27) 1st paragraph: The entire paragraph should be rewritten for clarity. The 2nd
sentence is a run-on sentence. The last sentence is confusing. Are the authors
conveying that these results are consistent with the published literature?
(28) 2nd paragraph: Information on the UK study may be better for the
Background.
(29) 3rd paragraph: Please edit the last two sentences for clarity.
(30) 4th paragraph: Information on the Australian and Pirotta, et al., studies may
be better for the Background.
(31) 7th paragraph: It is unclear why this section is included. Perhaps most of this
information would be better in the Background section along with a clear
statement of the study purpose.
(32) 8th paragraph, last sentence: Does this sentence imply that the study
measure was not valid?
(33) 8th paragraph: How did the authors control for the numerous confounding
factors, e.g., differences by clinic, county, culture, method of communication of
results, etc., in reporting and interpreting results?
(34) Table 1 - Please provide details on the statistical analyses conducted to
produce the information stated in the footnotes, (i.e., “significantly superior” and
“significantly greater”).
(35) Tables 2 – 5: Please explain the superscripts, BC and AC and how these
superscripts were determined.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.