Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Well written and clear paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 
We are very thankful for time spent on paper evaluation and Your positive opinion.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well designed study.  Study methods are a strength of this research.  

Discussion and/or conclusion should be expanded to suggest exactly what type of future research is needed so that the limitations would be addressed.  

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear Reviewer, 

On behalf of all co-authors I am pleased to submit a revised paper titled: “The web-based randomised controlled intervention as the enhancer of cancer prevention” (medicina-512405). We would like thank You so much for Your worth-value suggestion concerning our manuscript. 

Please find our answer below and explanation about the changes we made (line numbering refers to the revised version with enabled track changes option).

At the beginning, I would like to kindly inform that we decided to unify the spelling of the word “randomized” within the paper. Therefore, its spelling in the title of our paper has been changed trom “randomised” to “randomized”. 

Point 1. “Discussion and/or conclusion should be expanded to suggest exactly what type of future research is needed so that the limitations would be addressed. ”

Response 1: We have emphasized the need for further randomised controlled trial to evaluate impact of web-based intervention in real-life. Kindly see the end of Discussion section (lines 217-221).

We hope that the changes we have made will meet the expectations of the Reviewer. Once again, we would like to thank You for the really valuable suggestions.