Submited on: 17 Sep 2011 12:21:16 AM GMT
Published on: 17 Sep 2011 11:34:18 AM GMT
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Partly
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? No
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? No
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    This article discusses an important area for Public Health practice and the authors' report a systematic review and, appropriately, draw on their own experience My comments relate to the review

     

    The review is poorly reported and therefore the reader A) has difficulty following the paper and B) cannot judge whether the review was indeed systematic and unbiased and is likely to have retreived the relevant literature on this topic.  For example the number of studies identified "In all, forty-five documents were retrieved, but only thirty of them were included in the review." is reported early in the methods, before inclusion and exclusion criteria or search strategy.  No reasons are given for the exclusion of the 15 studies, moreover, it is very rare that a sensitive search on a public health topic will retrieve only 40 papers and that the matolity of papers retreived will be relevant.  This undermines one's confidence in reading the rest of the paper which becomes merely an opinion piece.

     

    I think that if the author's better structured their paper using the PRISMA guidelines (http://www.prisma-statement.org/), this would greatly strengthen the credibility of this paper

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    Book: Bradley P, Burls A, eds. Ethics in public health and community medicine, London: Routledge, 2000 Chapters withing book: Burls A, Cabello-Lopez J. Research methods in public health. In Bradley P, Burls A, eds. Ethics in public health and community medicine, London: Routledge, 2000 Burls A. Public participation and public health. In Bradley P, Burls A, eds. Ethics in public health and community medicine, London: Routledge, 2000
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I am a public health physician and have been undertaking systematic reviews for about 15 years for the UK NHS and others.

  • How to cite:  Burls A .Use the PRISMA guidelines for reporting the systematic review[Review of the article 'Community Mobilization and Consent Seeking for Public Health Action: Experiences from the field ' by Okwuosa C].WebmedCentral 2011;2(9):WMCRW00951
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse