Submited on: 12 Dec 2015 09:45:45 AM GMT
Published on: 12 Dec 2015 09:50:52 AM GMT
My Review
Posted by Dr. Hiaxia H Li on 11 Jan 2016 03:21:45 PM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The paper reviewed the use of mobile in ART adherence, and highlighted that mobile health is effective in improving ART adherence. In additional,  it provided some recommendations that should be considered for exerting this influence in Sub-Saharan Africa.

  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    It need to improve.

  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    Yes, it requires major revision to make it easier for people to obtain the valuable information.

  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?


  • Other Comments:

    The topic is interesting, however, it requires improvement to present. Below are the comments:


    1. A lot of orthographic mistakes are scattered along the paper, please double check and correct the word by adding a space.


    2. The article should be better organized and integrated. For example, the similar content should be merged and delete the duplicate sentences, such as the second paragraph in background merged into the first paragraph in introduction, the third paragraph in background merged into the second paragraph in introduction, the fourth paragraph in background merged into the third paragraph in introduction , etc.


    3. The part of the "abstraction" and the "key search terms" in methodology section had better be substituted with "databases and keywords" after they were merged.


    4. I suggest using the tables form to present the content in the cohort studies and Randomized Control Trials.

  • Competing interests:
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
  • References:
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I had participated in an international cooperation project about HIV.

  • How to cite:  Li H H.My Review[Review of the article 'Is Mobile-Health the answer to Anti-retroviral therapy non-adherence in sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review ' by Woke F].WebmedCentral 2016;7(1):WMCRW003268
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse