Reviewer's report
Title:A study of Gabonese women's knowledge regarding: Human papillomavirus
infection, Cervical cancer and Pap smear screening
Version:2Date:20 January 2015
Reviewer: Charlotte Lenselink
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript shows findings which may be important to those with related
research interests. The title and abstract accurately convey what has been found.
The questions posed by the authors are well defined and the manuscript adheres
to the relevant standards for reporting and data deposition. However, the use of
English language was very poor and the article raised some questions regarding:
methods, results, discussion and conclusions.
Major Compulsory Revisions
English language: editing will be needed by a native English speaker/writer;
regarding grammar, use of punctuation marks, use of adjectives/adverbs,
conjunctions, etc.
Methods
The methods section needs clarification regarding:
Grouping into knowledgeable / not knowledgeable, subdivisions (n=452, 414
have heard of cervical cancer, however, only 29 are knowledgeable?)
Discussion and Conclusion
The discussion and conclusions are not well balanced and are not adequately
supported by the data. Many other studies are addressed, however, some of the
most important findings of this study itself are not.
The conclusion mentions educational campaigns and its effects, media, and
implementation of a screening program, however, this has not been investigated
by this study.
Please use the conclusion to answer you study objectives, based on the results
of your current research.
Minor revisions
Background
Reference 3: This article is about carcinogenesis, not about whether HPV has to
be considered as a sexually transmitted disease or not, please use a different
reference or delete this phrase as HPV transmission may occur through a
“skin-to-skin” contact and protective measures like condom-use are not sufficient.
Methods
The methods may need some clarification regarding:
Data analysis: univariate analysis? Forward regression?
Women were asked to participate by the researchers in public sites, this may
have introduced some bias as >50% went to university / secondary school,
please address this in the discussion, please state which public sites (for
instance…).
Results
The figures appear to be genuine.
However, when presenting results, please stick to describing the results and
discuss / interpret them in the discussion. For instance: keep away from words
like: overwhelming, tiny, interestingly, etc.
Tables: please stat the amount / n / %, so it is clear which percentage refers to
what “n”, for instance: table 3, how many times a smear was taken.
Table 5: needs some clarification why only 29 women are knowledgeable.
Discussion
Many other studies are addressed, however, some of the most important findings
of this study itself are not.
Population studied: many women attended university, does this represent the
population of Gabon? Additionally, most women had a low income job, how is
this explained?
Knowledge level / no association with educational level and occupation.
The limitations of the work are not clearly stated (for instance: method of
inclusion, population studied / representable?/ bias, etc).
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests