Financing Cocaine Use in a Homeless Population
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have made considerable changes to the paper. They have been very responsive to the reviewer comments. The paper is very unique and extends the existing knowledge. I congratulate the authors and recommend publication of this paper in its current form.
Reviewer 2 Report
Major concerns:
1. Table and figure represented the same information which is not allowed
2. In the figures there are no error bars how to get significance?
Minor concerns:
1. Line 34 What is the full name of “NIDA”?
2. Line 69 Which country is the kit bought from and what is the full name of OnTRAK?
3. Line 122 α≤.05 is not in accordance with other part of the paper which uses βor p and causes confusion. At the same time α=.05 can not be considered significant.
.05 should be 0.05. Same condition happened in other places.
4. Line 127 What is the meaning of “SD”?
5. Line 134 “44% had evidence of cocaine use” is not clear, what is the evidence?
6. Line 151 What are the meanings of S, z ?
7. Line 164 What are the meanings of β?
8. Line 375 “age of the data” causes confusion.
9. Line 381 “-“ causes confusion. Same condition happened in other parts of the paper.
