Content of review 1, reviewed on September 21, 2018

Abstract and Title 1. The word count was below 250 words. 2. The aim of the abstract was clear. 3. The methods section may be improved by adding info such as study design, sampling technique, statistical tests, and level of significance. 4. The result and conclusion section was clearly explained. The conclusion matched the objective of the study. 5. The title was relevant and mentioned the study design as per STROBE guidelines. References 1. Total no. of references =26 2. References between 2000 -2018= 19 3. References between 1990-2000 = 6 4. References before 1990 = 1 5. The references are recent (73.08%) and relevant. 6. The references are referenced correctly. 7. The references included key studies relevant to the present study. Introduction 1. The purpose/ rationale of the research study was clearly explained with help of background information. 2. The objective of the study was clearly outlined Methodology 1. The key elements of the study design like the descriptive cross-sectional study were clearly explained. 2. The sampling technique (convenient sampling) and the basis for sample size (480) were explicitly outlined. 3. The study instrument was validated and the Cronbach's alpha values of 0.73 and 0.76 indicate acceptable internal consistency. 4. The scoring of the instrument along with the cut off values was clearly explained. It may be good if the author explained the procedure they followed to achieve that cut off values (<7 and ≥7 for attitude section and <6 and ≥6 for practices section). 5. The ethical committee approval was clearly mentioned. It may be advisable if the author added the ethical committee approval reference number. 6. The selection criterion was outlined clearly. Results 1. The tables are clearly represented with appropriate titles and labels. 2. The demographic characteristics of participants were clearly represented. 3. Summary measures like adjusted Odd’s Ratio, mean and standard deviation for age was reported. 4. The important results were explained as text. Table numbers are referred correctly for the results. 5. The author explained that the statement “Antibiotics are safe drugs” denotes positive attitudes. Whereas the author quoted the same statement as indicative of negative attitude in the results section (2nd paragraph, 2-5 lines). 6. The statement “The association of demographic variables with the attitude score of the participant is summarized in Table 3” (3rd paragraph, 17-18 lines) has to be placed at the beginning of the 3rd paragraph. 7. The author stated a p-value of <0.05 as statistically significant, but the author quoted a significant relationship between education and positive attitudes at a p-value of 0.056, between occupation and attitude at a p-value of 0.054 (Table 3) Discussion 1. The author stated a response rate of 96% in the 1st paragraph, 8th line of the discussion section. However, the author stated a response rate of 83.3% in the results section (1st paragraph, 2nd line). 2. The key results were explicitly stated. The findings are related to the previous studies. 3. The limitations of the study were discussed and the author addressed the source of bias and about the generalizability of the results. 4. The conclusion answered the aim of the study. The author addressed the further scope of research to be done like imposing regulatory efforts and the availability of antibiotics.

Source

    © 2018 the Reviewer (CC BY 4.0).

References

    A., H. M., Mohammad, A., Fahad, S., U., K. M., Akram, A., Warisha, M., Harika, B., A., S. I. 2017. Assessment of attitudes and practices of young Malaysian adults about antibiotics use: a cross-sectional study. Pharmacy Practice.