Reviewer's report
Title:Effect of vaginal self-sampling on cervical cancer screening rates: a
community-based study in Newfoundland.
Version:4Date:20 February 2015
Reviewer: Silvia Minozzi
Reviewer's report:
Effect of vaginal self-sampling on cervical cancer screening rates: a
community-based study in Newfoundland.
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? Yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described? It is not clear ( not
described) where, how and how often the educational campaign in community A
and B were implemented. Moreover it should be described in detail what was the
“Regular provincial education” implemented in community C and in what was
different or similar to the educational campaign realized in communities A and B.
In the analysis comparing the results of the three communities potential
confounding factors (i.e. level of education, marital status, previous adherence to
screening programs, adherence to other screening programs (i.e. breast cancer
screening through mammography) are not accounted for using appropriate
statistical analysis ( i.e regression analysis)
3. Are the data sound?
4. Do the figures appear to be genuine, i.e. without evidence of manipulation?
No, it is not clear why demographic characteristics are not reported in table 3 for
community C They should be reported
5. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? yes
6. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data? yes
7. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? yes
8. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished? yes
9. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? Yes for title.
In the abstracts also results of group C ( no intervention) and of the comparison
between A and C should be reported
10. Is the writing acceptable? Yes
Discretionary Revisions (which are recommendations for improvement but which
the author can choose to ignore)
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.In the abstracts also results of group C ( no intervention) and of the comparison
between A and C should be reported
2. is not clear ( not described) where, how and how often the educational
campaign in community A and B were implemented. Moreover it should be
described in detail what was the “Regular provincial education” implemented in
community C and in what was different or similar to the educational campaign
realized in communities A and B.
3.it is not clear why demographic characteristics are not reported in table 3 for
community C They should be reported
Major Compulsory Revisions (which the author must respond to before a
decision on publication can be reached)
4.In the analysis comparing the results of the three communities potential
confounding factors (i.e. level of education, marital status, previous adherence to
screening programs, adherence to other screening programs (i.e. breast cancer
screening through mammography) are not accounted for using appropriate
statistical analysis ( i.e regression analysis)
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests