All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear Authors,
Your manuscript is acceptable for publication in its current form.
No comments
No comment
No comment
The language has been improved
All the typos in percentages have been corrected.
Changes have been made in table 2 and 3 as requested.
No comment.
Dear Authors, please provide a revision of your manuscript based on the reviewers' comments or write a detailed rebuttal on a point-by-point basis.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
The language and the sentence construction could be improved. Here are some suggestions but there are lot of more so please correct them as also tip Fellers (spaces between interpunctions and similar.
20 Bronchial asthma: asthma, replace all bronchial asthma with asthma in the article
41 door or window opening?
186 The study also revealed that 41.2% of females and 58.8% of males were found to be asthmatic – rephrase, you meant that from all asthmatics those were the percentages?
214 , is missing family history of asthma, house
215 door or window opening during cooking
216 and being physically inactive
221 with higher household monthly income
227 4.64). Similarly or , similarly
276-8 This implies that a susceptible individual with a family history of asthma has to minimize the environmental conditions that can trigger the development of bronchial asthma signs and symptoms
310 people who had avoidance behavior towards pets was low
Has some flaws but the results can be of interest for further research.
Conclusions of the reasons why there are some connections are pretty basic and inaccurate, should be more precise.
This article needs minor English polishing. In one sentence dot is missing (queue 268, after skin allergy). Literature references are adequate and provide sufficient knowledge that supports results from his study. Article has all standard sections.
This article is very informative and gives excellent data on socio-demographic characteristics of asthmatic patient in Ethiopia.
No comment
Until part named "result" is correct.
In results author made several mistakes:
Queue 183 - it is reverse - 51% of controls and 64% of cases - it should be changed or it should be changed in Table 1 (authors made a mistake)
Queue 191 - 2.8% of females get their asthma worse during their pregnancy (in Table 1 - asthma control get worse - 27% - again author made a mistake and it should be changed)
Queue 197 - 11.3% of the carpets used stayed for more than five years (Table 2 - above 5 years - 2.3%)
Queue 201 - 5.7% have a history of cigarette smoking (Table 2 - it is 4.2% for study participants, 5.7% is only for cases with asthma)
From queue 218-237 it is totally confusing.
AOR in the manuscript does not match with results in Table 3.
Maybe they showed OR from multivariant analysis in the text and in table maybe they showed from univariant analysis??? I really don't understand. Numbers in text (AOR) and in the table 3 are absolutely different. Only if authors have an explanation for this, after major revision this article could be accepted and otherwise not.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.