Reviewer's report 
 Seroprevalence of hepatitis C and associated risk factors among an urban population in Haiti Title: 
 1  24 August 2004 Version: Date: 
 Maria Regina Cardoso Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is an interesting paper which offers valuable information on HCV infection in Haiti 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
I have just few questions/suggestions to make: 
1)There was a mix-up at the Background section, with methods (end of first paragraph) and results (end of second paragraph) being presented. Thus, I would like to encourage the authors to review this section 
2) How was the sample size estimated? 
3) In the Results section, it would be helpfull to inform the number of subjects who had to be contacted in order to obtain the study sample. In other words, how many subjects refused to 
participate in the study? Were they different (age, socioeconomic condition, etc.) from those included 
in the study? 
4) The authors could present the 95% Confidence Interval for the prevalence of positive HCV antibodies 5) In the Discussion section, the authors could offer more information on the representativeness of 
their study sample. How is the access of the population of Cap-Haitien to health services? Is the 
study sample a very particular subgroup of the whole population? Is there any possibility of bias due to the number of refuses? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None 
Reviewer's report 
 Seroprevalence of hepatitis C and associated risk factors among an urban population in Haiti Title: 
 1  24 August 2004 Version: Date: 
 Maria Regina Cardoso Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is an interesting paper which offers valuable information on HCV infection in Haiti 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
I have just few questions/suggestions to make: 
1)There was a mix-up at the Background section, with methods (end of first paragraph) and results (end of second paragraph) being presented. Thus, I would like to encourage the authors to review this section 
2) How was the sample size estimated? 
3) In the Results section, it would be helpfull to inform the number of subjects who had to be contacted in order to obtain the study sample. In other words, how many subjects refused to 
participate in the study? Were they different (age, socioeconomic condition, etc.) from those included 
in the study? 
4) The authors could present the 95% Confidence Interval for the prevalence of positive HCV antibodies 5) In the Discussion section, the authors could offer more information on the representativeness of 
their study sample. How is the access of the population of Cap-Haitien to health services? Is the 
study sample a very particular subgroup of the whole population? Is there any possibility of bias due to the number of refuses? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Seroprevalence of hepatitis C and associated risk factors among an urban population in Haiti Title: 
 1  24 August 2004 Version: Date: 
 Maria Regina Cardoso Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is an interesting paper which offers valuable information on HCV infection in Haiti 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
I have just few questions/suggestions to make: 
1)There was a mix-up at the Background section, with methods (end of first paragraph) and results (end of second paragraph) being presented. Thus, I would like to encourage the authors to review this section 
2) How was the sample size estimated? 
3) In the Results section, it would be helpfull to inform the number of subjects who had to be contacted in order to obtain the study sample. In other words, how many subjects refused to 
participate in the study? Were they different (age, socioeconomic condition, etc.) from those included 
in the study? 
4) The authors could present the 95% Confidence Interval for the prevalence of positive HCV antibodies 5) In the Discussion section, the authors could offer more information on the representativeness of 
their study sample. How is the access of the population of Cap-Haitien to health services? Is the 
study sample a very particular subgroup of the whole population? Is there any possibility of bias due to the number of refuses? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None 
assistant