peer review
The abstract states that a scoping review following PRISMA-ScR guidelines was conducted, yet quantitative estimates are presented (e.g., >85% genetic linkage, coverage ranges, hotspot counts).Scoping reviews typically map evidence rather than synthesize estimates.Clarify whether these gures are single-study ndings, medians across studies, or narrative summaries, and avoid pseudo-quantitative certainty if no formal synthesis was performed.. Key terms lack de nition.Brief operational clarity for phrases such as "micro-transmission hotspots, " "hard-to-reach populations, " and "single epidemiological block" would improve interpretability.. The results section is dense.Readability could be improved by structuring ndings into thematic categories (e.g.,
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.32388/fsutj7
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
