Comments on abstract:

The abstract is short and clear in its explanations. It is divided by topics that make reading easier. The methods is clear. It seems appropriate to a good abstract.

Title: The title uses a political term that was created. It does not seem to be a good place to use this language. It has a generic proposal, difficult to know something more specific

References: The references have articles by renowned authors in the area. I note the presence of legislation on the program. They seem to be up to date with the year of publication.

Comments on introduction/background

●Is it clear what is already known about this topic? Yes. ● Is the research question clearly outlined? Yes. ● Is the research question justified given what is already known about the topic? Yes because the changes in the program will be evaluated.

The authors direct the text to people who understand the subject. There are no explanations about Brazil's health model, with abbreviations for the names of public programs.

There is a big paragraph explaining the history of creating health policies in Brazil. This is repeated in figure 1, something that could be better summarized. The aim is clear.

Comments on methodology

●Is the process of subject selection clear? Yes. ● Are the variables defined and measured appropriately? It has a large amount of variables, makes the methods very confusing. ● Are the study methods valid and reliable? I believe that if there were a decrease in the variables the study would be more accurate. ● Is there enough detail in order to replicate the study? It seems to be a replicable study

Several variables were used to select the proposed theme, something that may escape the initial objective. The search process was detailed and the various databases seem to be adequate. After the selection process there were only 32 articles. A number that may not be appropriate for assessing a national policy of a large country. The generalization of work is difficult to achieve because the methodology does not have a large impact on scientific evidence.

Comments on data and results

● Is the data presented in an appropriate way? The selected studies are mostly qualitative methodologies. ● Tables and figures relevant and clearly presented? Tables 1 and 2 describe all the studies analyzed. Although they were well separated they became very large. They have a lot of text, something that does not make them very clear and difficult to read ● Appropriate units, rounding, and number of decimals? There are no problems regarding numbering since they are descriptive studies. ● Titles, columns, and rows labelled correctly and clearly? I believe that the separation is adequate ● Categories grouped appropriately? They are difficult to group and quantify in terms of their results.The groupings gather a lot of information to be presented in the tables. ● Does the text in the results add to the data or is it repetitive? The text repeats information contained in the tables ● Are you clear about what is a statistically significant result? There is no statistical analysis because the study is qualitative ● Are you clear about what is a practically meaningful result? The interpretation may be controversial because of the researcher's opinion. The great part is of only one region of Brazil (Northeast), something that compromises the generalization for the national research of health policy. In the analyzed data there is a description of the difficulties found in the units qualitatively for the outcome. The section of the results occupies much of the article. The authors use information from a small number of articles that did not need to be described, could be present only in the large tables.

Comments on discussion and conclusions

● Are the results discussed from multiple angles and placed into context without being overinterpreted? it seems that the author has a face color. With many articles demonstrating how shortcomings of the program ● Do the conclusions answer the aims of the study? There is an attempt to answer the goal question, but the design of the study proved inadequate ● Are the conclusions supported by references or results? No. Need more data to support the conclusion ● Are the limitations of the study fatal or are they opportunities to inform future research? The study does not have mortality as an outcome

Was the study design appropriate to answer the aim? The study design seems to be good for answering the question. ● What did this study add to what was already known on this topic? The study just brought the description of how some people note the public health program with little new content to the subject ● What were the major flaws of this article? The small number of articles and great part of only one region of Brazil. ● Is the article consistent within itself? I believe that it is better data quality and have a quantitative profile for a more accurate analysis

The authors bring in the discussion the clearest bias of the article, most of the studies are located in the northeastern region of Brazil. Together with other researchers in the field, they find that this finding is quite common. It seeks comments from other articles that report the difficulties in providing an adequate health service in the Brazilian public system. It could have presented more scientific evidence in the discussion. Try to discuss above the Brazil Smiling program that the difficulties in providing public services are not just oral health. But looking at the results, it is difficult to make any conclusions because the data are not representative of the whole country, with many systematic errors in the evaluation and data collection.