Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Utilization of healthcare services among Chinese migrants in Kenya: A qualitative study  
 
Version: 1 Date: 08 Oct 2019  
 
Reviewer: Hiroki Kawashima  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors tried to introduce the usability of novel technique for repositioning a nasobiliary 
catheter from the mouth to nostril. Though this novel technique is very interesting, this study has 
some problem. The authors should clarify the following point s.   
 
 
1. Though I understand this study is retrospective fashion, it is necessary to explain how the 
patient was allocated (depend on time? operator? facility?)?  
 
 
2. Page 8, line 10: "Patients without sufficient~", how many patients were excluded? The 
authors should clarify the number of patients who were excluded in this study in each 
group.  
 
 
3. Page 9, line 42; "mean ± SDs", Were all continuous variables normally distributed? If 
not, continuous variables should be presented "median (range)". If continuous variables 
were normally distributed, t -test should be used.  
 
 
4. Page 10, line 35; I cannot understand the reason why difficult to use the new technique in 
two patients, anatomical reason? Please make it clear. How about Mallampati score of 
this two patient s?  How to tube reposition in this two patients?    
 
 
5. Page 11, line 53; "Appropriate depth", how to decide the "appropriate depth"?  
 
 
6. Page 13, line 21; Was this study approved by Ethics Committiee of each institutes?   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, pl ease specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions dr awn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fee s, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financiall y from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents  relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organizati on that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
If you can answer no to all of the a bove, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under a n Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editor s, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Utilization of healthcare services among Chinese migrants in Kenya: A qualitative study  
 
Version: 1 Date: 08 Oct 2019  
 
Reviewer: Hiroki Kawashima  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors tried to introduce the usability of novel technique for repositioning a nasobiliary 
catheter from the mouth to nostril. Though this novel technique is very interesting, this study has 
some problem. The authors should clarify the following point s.   
 
 
1. Though I understand this study is retrospective fashion, it is necessary to explain how the 
patient was allocated (depend on time? operator? facility?)?  
 
 
2. Page 8, line 10: "Patients without sufficient~", how many patients were excluded? The 
authors should clarify the number of patients who were excluded in this study in each 
group.  
 
 
3. Page 9, line 42; "mean ± SDs", Were all continuous variables normally distributed? If 
not, continuous variables should be presented "median (range)". If continuous variables 
were normally distributed, t -test should be used.  
 
 
4. Page 10, line 35; I cannot understand the reason why difficult to use the new technique in 
two patients, anatomical reason? Please make it clear. How about Mallampati score of 
this two patient s?  How to tube reposition in this two patients?    
 
 
5. Page 11, line 53; "Appropriate depth", how to decide the "appropriate depth"?  
 
 
6. Page 13, line 21; Was this study approved by Ethics Committiee of each institutes?   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, pl ease specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions dr awn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fee s, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financiall y from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents  relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organizati on that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
If you can answer no to all of the a bove, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under a n Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editor s, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Utilization of healthcare services among Chinese migrants in Kenya: A qualitative study  
 
Version: 1 Date: 08 Oct 2019  
 
Reviewer: Hiroki Kawashima  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors tried to introduce the usability of novel technique for repositioning a nasobiliary 
catheter from the mouth to nostril. Though this novel technique is very interesting, this study has 
some problem. The authors should clarify the following point s.   
 
 
1. Though I understand this study is retrospective fashion, it is necessary to explain how the 
patient was allocated (depend on time? operator? facility?)?  
 
 
2. Page 8, line 10: "Patients without sufficient~", how many patients were excluded? The 
authors should clarify the number of patients who were excluded in this study in each 
group.  
 
 
3. Page 9, line 42; "mean ± SDs", Were all continuous variables normally distributed? If 
not, continuous variables should be presented "median (range)". If continuous variables 
were normally distributed, t -test should be used.  
 
 
4. Page 10, line 35; I cannot understand the reason why difficult to use the new technique in 
two patients, anatomical reason? Please make it clear. How about Mallampati score of 
this two patient s?  How to tube reposition in this two patients?    
 
 
5. Page 11, line 53; "Appropriate depth", how to decide the "appropriate depth"?  
 
 
6. Page 13, line 21; Was this study approved by Ethics Committiee of each institutes?   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, pl ease specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions dr awn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fee s, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financiall y from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents  relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organizati on that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
If you can answer no to all of the a bove, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under a n Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editor s, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant