Submited on: 21 Nov 2011 06:05:15 PM GMT
Published on: 22 Nov 2011 06:51:03 AM GMT
Not a reliable assessment of occupation as a predictor of genitalia infections
Posted by Mr. Joseph Vanghelof on 04 Nov 2017 02:14:32 AM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

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

    Students and those not currently employed are at increased risk for genital tract infections compared to sexually active women with other occupations; hence women with these occupations should be targeted for sexually transmitted infections screening.

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

    No, there are numerous studies which include occupation as a risk factor for sexually related infections. 

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

    Yes, overall infection rate was comparable to the rate found in another city in Nigeria. The authors also compared the prevalence of the specific strains of bacteria, and noted how they differ from rates found in other counties. 

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

    Eight occupation categories were evaluated, but this reviewer is unable to confirm the appropriateness of the chosen occupations for the locale during the years of the study. A chi-squared test indicted a significant difference among the groups. The authors claim the two groups with the highest rate of infection should be targeted for screening; however, no statistics are presented to indicate these two groups are the ones different from the others. Furthermore, no confounders were taken into account, so it is entirely possible the true underlying trend may be due to factors such as age, education level, income, or other factors. 

  • 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?

    A randomized controlled trial design was implemented, and there do not seem to be any significant deviations from the protocol.

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

    The methodology is lacking in correction for confounders, but more importantly, the data was collected from April 2001 to May 2002, published in 2011, and is now being reviewed in 2017. It is likely there will be difficulty reproducing this study as many societal factors may have changed in the time elapsed that would alter the outcome.

  • 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?

    This article would have been greatly improved if confounders such as age, education level, or income were considered. This would have a minimal burden on data collection and analysis.

  • 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?

    No, due to the aforementioned problems related to the lack of attention to confounders and the time elapsed since data collection.

  • Other Comments:


  • 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:

    My primary criticism of the article regards lack of assessment of confounding factors and more than decade passed since the data was generated. I am not sure what else I should write here.

  • How to cite:  Vanghelof J .Not a reliable assessment of occupation as a predictor of genitalia infections[Review of the article 'The Influence of Occupation on Genital Tract Infections ' by Hanaggada H].WebmedCentral 2017;8(11):WMCRW003394
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse