• Title 1: “Serological analysis for the detection HeB in pregnant women in EAC: a comparison with culture background
This title looks good because it has participant: pregnant women, comparison with culture background in mentioned, the outcome is mentioned as serological analysis for detection HeB, wording is in range (16). But it has some critics like unnecessary words or repletion serological analysis=the detection of HeB, moreover it is not good to include abbreviation in title ( HeB, EAC) . The intervention is not applicable here, type of study is not mentioned. Comparing to others this looks good
• Title 2: Rapid emergence of in-vitro resistance to ampicillin and cotrimoxazole in Shigella dysenteries typed from Musanze.”
The title is not clear, no type of study, no participants, and no comparison, moreover, not every reader can know what is Musanze. The intervention in unknown, we only have the outcome in vitro resistance to ampicillin and cotrimoxazole in Shigella dysenteries typed (and it is difficult to confirm this)
• Title 3: “Risk factors of stunting among U5 children in Bugesera district”.
Abbreviation not allowed, no type of study mentioned even though it sound as cross-sectional one, not every ready can know what is BUGESERAs. The intervention is not applicable here. But the outcome (stunting is announced), participants are there (under five children).
• “Title 4: “Report of an assessment into poor hygiene behavior as a reason for the acquisition of diarrhea by some minority in living in slams in Kenya”.
To long title (25 words) , with unnecessary details (report, ) and without type of study nor type of intervention, dependent factors like poor hygiene behavior was not necessary to mention. However it has the outcome Diarrhea, participants are not specific as stated as minority, and description of location is well done: slams in Kenya.
• Title 5: “We should stop using formula milk to treat malnutrition in premature babies”
This sound as conclusion taken about and unknown action, study?? Wording is good(12), participant might be premature babies, but no intervention mentioned, no known type of study, no sound of outcome, and no known comparison: I take this as the bad one.
