Reviewer's report 
 Understandings of reproductive tract infections in a peri-urban pueblo joven in Lima, Peru Title: 
 1  12 February 2006 Version: Date: 
 George Schmid Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I have placed page/paragraph/line number in parentheses. 
I enjoyed reading this paper but, unfortunately, I am not a content expert in this field. Overall, I think the authors have decent, albeit limited, qualitative data. The data are also a bit old but I'll give credit to the authors for giving the date of data acquisition and likely the situation now is similar. It seems 
that there is dissonance between what the data show and the way the authors portray the data in the 
paper. That is, the conclusions reached, e.g., in the abstract or the end of the paper, are not entirely consistent with the data, or at least how I interpret the data. If the authors could review the paper for consistency, assuming I am correct, it would strengthen the paper. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
1. (2/3) The Results state that there are “high rates of gynecologic symptoms, low condom use, mle 
infidelity and familiarity with the biomedeical model of RTI transmission....” How do the authors know this? I do not see these “facts” established or referenced in the paper. 
2. (2/3) The Results state that “...perceived personal risk was low.” This may be but, again, I do not 
see it established in the paper. 3. (9/3/1) “Most respondents appeared to be aware of sexual transmission as a cause of RTIs” seems at odds with the conclusions elsewhere of the authors. And, that health care workers were 
aware of the stigma of RTIs (10/1/1) suggests that the women certainly knew sexual transmission 
was a, or the, way they acquired STIs (and, probably, RTIs). The Conclusions states, for example, 
“that women described agents of contamination as microbes found in the dust or soil,” or, “the 
dominant model was one that attributed RTIs almost entirely to adverse local enrironment.” (11/3/2) 
The authors may be saying that women really, in their hearts, knew how STIs were transmitted but 
preferred to place the blame elsewhere. If this is the case, could they explicitly say so? And, if this is 
the case, how does this realization reflect in potential ways to address knowledge of RTIs in the 
female community? 
4. Following on the above comment, the authors suggest (16/2/1) that investing in the physical 
infrastructure of communities might enhance the prevention of RTIs. Is this realistic? That is, if 
women really do know that STIs/RTIs are sexually transmitted, would this argument make sense? 
5. Overall, I would appreciate the authors reviewing their paper to ensure that their interpretations 
are consistent and, of course, correct. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
Table 1 is useful, although difficult to interpret (a lot of “yes’s” and “no’s” for which there seems little 
pattern). And, the table seems best put in Results. The table seems to be a compilation of a review by the authors. As such, it seems original work, if you will, in the categorization it uses and the geographic scope represented. 
2. (4/1/4) Table 1 uses studies from several continents but the text states that additional studies from 
the US, Canada and India are available. Did the Table include all studies available from other 
countries? For existence, are there no studies from Africa other than the three in the Table? 
3. 6/3/3 There were about 7 weeks during which women were interviewed and 51 women were 
approached, an average of about 7/week. Was attendance by females really so sparse? 4. Table 2 seems unnecessary, with adequate information appearing in the text. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
1. There are a couple of typographical errors that should be corrected, e.g., 15/3/9 (“coastl”) but, 
most notably, the question among the authors (“is this in the US” found on 16/3/3). 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have not competing interests.