Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Breast cancer screening practices of African migrant women in Australia: a descriptive 
cross -sectional study  
 
Version: 1 Date: 02 Feb 2017  
 
Reviewer: Sheri Hartman  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
1. I'm still not clear on how a cut -point of 65 was chosen.  Was this a median split? Is there 
evidence from previous studies that this is a meaningful cut point?  
2. You mention a "half -rule" for  missing data, about how much missing data did you have?  I 
see from the Tables that you had very different amounts of people complete different 
questions, did I miss an explanation for that variation in the methods?  And please provide a 
citation to suppo rt this "half -rule".  
3. You still present the results that 54.7% of the entire sample of 18 -69 year olds had a 
mammogram.  I don't see how this information is meaningful considering mammograms are 
not routinely recommended for women under 40.  
4. Can you pl ease explain how "clinical breast examination" was defined in the questionnaire.   
5. For the paragraph about Table 3 and mammograms, it is not clear what age range was 
included in this analysis.  It is clear in the table but should be clear in the write -up as well.  
6. For Australia's "breast awareness" do the recommendations state that this should be checked 
on a monthly basis?  Please provide citations to support that the "alarming low monthly 
attention" to their breasts matches with recommendations.  
7. You stated that participants had the opportunity to ask questions about the measure, were 
they able to ask individuals in their primary language or English only?  
8. I appreciate that a limitations section was added but I encourage the authors to think if th ere 
are other limitations that they are missing.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please spec ify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Pleas e 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 financially from the publicatio n of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from 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 othe r financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing 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 acc epted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommon s.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal