Reviewer ’s report  
Title: The Knowledge and Perceptions of the First Year Medic al Students of an International 
University on Family Planning and Emergency Contracep tion in Nicosia (TRNC)  
 
Version: 3 Date: 28 Feb 2018  
 
Reviewer: Julie Hernandez  
 
Reviewer's report:  
General comments  
 
The authors have integrated some of the suggestions previously made regarding the scope and 
external validity of some of their findings and a greater effort has been made to draw conclusions 
adequately supported by the data shown.  
 
However, it is the reviewer's opinion that extensive editing of certain sections of the paper is still 
required before it can meet BMC Women's Health standards for publication.  
" Specifically, the introduction is extremely long, lacks quotes and references to previously 
published studies and tends to jump from very specific details to general considerations without 
much order. E.g. the WHO general definition of emer gency contraception comes after detailed 
descriptions of existing regimen.  
" In addition, throughout the paper, a clearer distinction needs to be made between the use 
of "method knowledge" (sometimes deemed "total knowledge") and "method awareness" as both  
concepts are used somewhat interchangeably.  
" The discussion section should not repeat the results and cannot solely consist in 
comparing results from other settings / studies (esp. in cases where study designs are not easily 
comparable) If comparisons m ust be made, the authors might clarify their points by grouping 
results that are similar across settings and highlighting those that may be unique to Cyprus?  
" Study limitations should appear as part of the Discussion section rather than after the 
Conclusi on 
 
Finally, the reviewer, who is not a native English speaker, has noted multiple occurrences of 
grammatical mistakes, awkward sentence constructions and lexical errors. We therefore strongly 
advise the authors to have their manuscript revised by a native  English -speaking editor in order 
to meet the standards for publication in international research journals.  
 
Detailed review and editing suggestions  
 
p.4 l.39   Sentence is unintelligible, review structure?  
p.4 l. 41   First two sentences are unrelated  
 
p.5 l.21  Why use the USA (vastly different context / economic and social development 
level) as a reference?  
p.5 l.27  Methods are "used" not "implemented"  
 "Death of the mother and the child" --> replace by "maternal and child mortality"  
 Write in present tense throughout the paper  
p.5 l.28 - 42 Repetitive statistics and few are relevant to the specific topic of the manuscript  
 
p.6 l.21  "abortion of pregnancy" --> "abortion"  
 
p.7 l.27  Reorganize paragraph to clarify specific needs of inter national students in terms 
of FP services  
p.7 l.45  Reviewer suggests starting with this to establish relevance of the research 
presented here  
 
p.8 l.28  "a cross -sectional survey"  
p.8 l.31  Review sentence structure  
p.8 l.36  Questionnaires are "administered"  rather than "applied"  
p.8 l.40  Review consent formulation  
 
p.9 l.24  "current regular sex behavior" -->  "sexual activity status" / "currently sexually 
active"  
p.10 The gender breakdown for the study participants should appear earlier  
p.10 l.37  Is this tru e for both male and female university students?  
p.10 l.39  Use "awareness" instead of knowledge (which require more technical information 
about each method) and give percentage of students aware of cervical cap, IUD and combined 
patch  
p.10 l.44  What does "c omplete knowledge" mean? (It was explained in the responses to the 
reviewer but still does not appear in the manuscript so the reader understands the concept).  
 
p.11. l.21  "Were declared" í review sentence structure  
p.11 l.51  "were of the opinion"  
 
p.13 l. 12 to 26  This paragraph is repeated twice  
p.13 l. 28  Review asymmetrical sentence structure  
p.13 l.39  The first few sentences repeat the Results section  
 
p.14. l.7 -8 (Again) clarify and be more specific in the use of "method awareness" vs. 
"method knowled ge". 
 
p.14 l.15  Existing research on the topic should be presented in the introduction section  
p.14 l.44  Why use only one reference for every result? Review Discussion section  
 
p.15 l.9  See ICEC documentation. Awareness and use of IUDs as EC method i slow 
across international settings.  
 
p.16. l.26  Incorrect use of "in compliance"  
p.16 l.27  Was this finding, or any other difference recorded by country of origin, 
statistically sign ificant?  
 
p.17 l.7 - 34 Statistical findings should appear in Results not Discussion section  
p.17 l.36  Incorrect use of "in compliance"  
 
p.17. l. 48  Review Conclusion section: first sentence is redundant and the section should 
include an implication state ment  
 
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.  
No 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical revi ew? 
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
I am able to assess the statistics  
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the man uscript:  
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
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 financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially f rom 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 reimbursements, 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 com peting 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 w ith the authors' 
responses. 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 c an be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal