Open Access Biomedical Publisher Using Post Publication Peer Review
I think it is an important topic and the study has the potential to contribute to our knowledge about oral health status of disabled children. However, the data analyses were not done appropriately as they are not in consistent with the objectives of the study. Also only % was calculated, which is too basic. More advanced analyses are needed in order to better understand the issues. For example, oral health status differences between gender, children with different kinds of disabilities, etc. should be analyzed. The discussion section was very weak and it did not add new insights to the article. While similar studies on the topic have been cited, they were not used in the way to address the issues in depth.
2. Handicapped should be changed to disabled throughout the paper.2. Materials and Methods: too simple. Need to include 2. Spell out “DMFT” when it is the first time being used.2. “The first institution to devote its entire resources to the physical care of disabled handicapped was established in 1780 in Switzerland.” Change to “Switzerland established the first institution to take care of disabled individuals in 1780.”2. BDA needs to be spelled out and references are needed.2. The introduction section needs to add what have been found by previous studies on the topic and indicates why your study is important.3. The method and material section is too simple. You need to include some info included in Tables 1&2. How were the data collected? Using a survey? Any info. regarding the validity and reliability of the survey? How the data were analyzed?- Why did you skip the result section?- Regarding the discussion of what was used to brushing teeth (i.e., tooth powder, sand and brick powder), you need to focus on why your study found more use of tooth paste. Why not analyzing the use of tooth paste in relation to any tooth problems?- Do you have any data concerning the use of toothbrushes? If yes, need more in-depth discussion on this issue.- You just listed the findings of others’ studies here, which has little meaning here. - “The periodontal condition is poor in this group the reason may lack of visibility in blind group and improper handling due to physical nature of handicapped.” You need to use your data to support this statement.- In physically disabled patients vs. in mentally retarded patients, please do not just list the %. You need to test the differences between the two groups.- Too many conclusions.
Review 1: What is the required Sample size for this study?.
Review 2: Whether the sample size is adequate to infere about the study hypothesis?
Review 3: What is the sampling procedure?
Review 4: Discussion and conclusion can be improved...
I am editor of Several Indexed Peer Reviewed Medical Journals.
This is a study of the oral hygiene practice, dental needs and periodontal needs among handicapped children in Belgaum City. The study was conducted at schools for the handicapped.
The findings of the study would be of interest to most health professionals involved with Public Health, however, there are multiple shortcomings in the paper as detailed below.
The Methods section is lacking in detail. Who conducted exams? Over what time period was the study conducted?
The Discussion section contains a mixture of results and discussion.
The Conclusion section is mostly a brief statement of findings - there are no clear conclusions stated in the study.
The grammer needs improved.
The tables are excessive: Tables 1, 3, 4, 4a, and 5 could be combined into a single table. Table 2 could be eliminated; the graph duplicates this information.
Medical Director - Public Health - Dayton & Montgomery County
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution License