Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
Author's response to reviews Title: Knowledge of chlamydia trachomatis among men and women approached to participate in community-based screening, Scotland, UK. Authors:
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Lorimer, Karen Hart, Graham J. Connell, Emer P. O’ |
| Copyright Year | 2010 |
| Abstract | Include data in the abstract with key N’s and confidence intervals. Data has been added as requested. Methods The methods a little unclearI suggest more detail is needed rather than just asking readers to find another paper.. For example which survey is this study referring tothe initial one or the one where people were called back? How was the sub sample chosen for the second study? What is an ‘education’ centre? What type of workplace was chosen and why? When exactly was the study undertaken (dates of the 4 weeks). How did they know the age of the individuals they approached? Additional information on these details has now been provided in the method section (p4-5). Results The results are unclear. OR are presented but it is not clear what they refer to....what is the referent group? In table 2what does the OR refer to? Is not clear enough...needs to be spelt out really clearly. Findings have been re-written (p9-10). Table 4 shows men are the referent group. In table one....I’m not sure I totally agree with the answers to all the questions as being correct or not. Without knowing which you disagree with, and in light that these were all verified with GUM staff, we’ll assume this is a comment and not a mandatory correction? Discussion The question posed by the authors is well defined in the introduction but in the discussion the authors need to say what it means. How did these results help the authors increase chlamydia screening to levels where it may decrease the prevalence....the discussion (preferably the first paragraph) should contain this very clear point. The first paragraph should come out and saywhat does all this meanhow have we progressed, but it doesn’t really do this. I’m also lost to know if the authors think this is a good way of recruiting people, whether knowledge is important and how it would effect recruitment is these venues. The limitations of the work are clearly statedi.e. their knowledge may have been positively influenced by reading the materials. The discussion section has been re-written to better link with relevant literature and flag the key findings. |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://static-content.springer.com/openpeerreview/art:10.1186%2F1471-2458-10-794/12889_2010_2705_AuthorComment_V2.pdf |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://static-content.springer.com/openpeerreview/art:10.1186%2F1471-2458-10-794/12889_2010_2705_AuthorComment_V3.pdf |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
