JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's□report 
□Diagnostic□and□treatment□characteristics□of□polycystic□ovary□syndrome:□descriptive□measurements Title: 
of□patient□perception□and□awareness□from□657□confidential□self-reports 
Authors: 
E.□Scott□Sills□( dr.sills@ivf.com )
Mark□Perloe□( mpmd@ivf.com )
Michael□J.□Tucker□( mtucker@ivf.com )
Carolyn□Ruth□Kaplan□( ckaplan@ivf.com )
Marc□Georges□Genton□( genton@math.mit.edu )
Glenn□L.□Schattman□( glschatt@mail.med.cornell.edu )
□1□ □20□Jul□2001 Version: Date: 
□Dr□Vivian□Lewis Reviewer: 
□not□specified Level□of□interest: 
□Other□(see□below) Advice□on□publication: 
The□authors□aims□are□to:□1)□describe□the□knowledge□base□about□PCOS□in□an□ 
unscreened□population□2)□identify□origins□of□information□about□PCOS□3)□ 
describe□emotions□and□feelings□about□PCOS□4)□measure□patient□receptiveness□ to□various□types□treatment□strategies.□They□succeed□in□achieving□some□of□ those□aims.□However,□the□fact□that□most□of□the□patients□had□visited□their□ 
physician□within□the□past□6□months□and□the□presumably□the□majority□were□ 
diagnosed□by□their□physician□suggests□that□some□screening□has□been□ performed.□By□the□same□token,□a□diagnosis□by□a□physician□and□recent□visit□ to□a□physician's□office□means□that□the□physician□would□very□likely□have□ 
given□some□information□about□the□disorder□to□the□patient.□ 
The□paper□generally□provides□sufficient□detail□about□the□work□with□a□few□ 
exceptions.□There□should□be□more□information□about□the□questionnaire.□(e.g.□ 
was□it□multiple□choice?□)□Another□point□of□interest□would□have□been□ 
inclusion□of□demographics□of□internet□users□in□general.□Since□the□women□who□ 
answered□the□questionnaire□were□most□frequently□between□the□ages□of□25□and□ 34,□is□that□similar□to□peak□frequency□of□internet□use?□ 
In□general,□the□paper□is□well□written□and□clear.□Data□are□presented□clearly□ 
and□concisely.□ 
Competing□interests: 
None□declared.
Reviewer's report
 Diagnostic and treatment characteristics of polycystic ovary syndrome: descriptive measurements Title:
of patient perception and awareness from 657 confidential self-reports
Authors:
E. Scott Sills (dr.sills@ivf.com )
Mark Perloe (mpmd@ivf.com )
Michael J. Tucker (mtucker@ivf.com )
Carolyn Ruth Kaplan (ckaplan@ivf.com )
Marc Georges Genton (genton@math.mit.edu )
Glenn L. Schattman (glschatt@mail.med.cornell.edu )
 1  31 Jul 2001 Version: Date:
 Dr Evelyn Talbott Reviewer:
 A paper of limited interest Level of interest:
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until I see revised version Advice on publication:
1. Are the conclusions drawn adequately 
supported by the data shown: if not, what are the shortcomings and could they be overcome? 
The study utilized 657 individuals' self-report questionnaire responses to determine the perceptions, emotions and aptitude relative to PCOS. The data were well presented and the conclusions well founded based on the data. 
2. Are sufficient details provided to allow replication 
of the work or comparison with related analyses: if not, what is missing? My main concern with this study is the lack of medical confirmation of the PCOS case status. Although 
a significant proportion came from the medical practices of the authors, several hundred were able to 
access the internet site who may not have met the criteria for PCOS. The authors should include more 
detail concerning positive case ascertainment of the 657 PCOS cases, how were these verified? IN this 
way, others could replicate their work and build upon it in the future. 
3. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data deposition: if not, in 
what ways? 
The manuscript appears to adhere to the relevant standards for reporting. I understand this was 
anonymous reporting and therefore did not require IRB oversight. 
Competing interests:
None declared.
Reviewer's report
 Diagnostic and treatment characteristics of polycystic ovary syndrome: descriptive measurements Title:
of patient perception and awareness from 657 confidential self-reports
Authors:
E. Scott Sills (dr.sills@ivf.com )
Mark Perloe (mpmd@ivf.com )
Michael J. Tucker (mtucker@ivf.com )
Carolyn Ruth Kaplan (ckaplan@ivf.com )
Marc Georges Genton (genton@math.mit.edu )
Glenn L. Schattman (glschatt@mail.med.cornell.edu )
 1  31 Jul 2001 Version: Date:
 Dr Chis Kelly Reviewer:
 A paper of limited interest Level of interest:
 Accept without revision Advice on publication:
This paper uses a web based design to examine the perception of PCOS patients with regards to their 
disease, treatment and knowledge base. 
It is well written and although limited by its design these limitations are recognised in the discussion. I would have no great urge to see it amended for this forum 
Competing interests:
None declared.
Reviewer's report
 Initial evaluation of long-term weight maintenance in women 2 to 11 years following a commercial Title:
weight loss program.
Authors:
Caroline Gosselin (gosselin.cabanac@sympatico.ca )
Guylaine Cote (acc316@agora.ulaval.ca )
 2  18 Jul 2001 Version: Date:
 Dr Michael Lowe Reviewer:
 A paper whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest:
 Accept after revision, which I do not need to see Advice on publication:
This paper reports on long-term maintenance of weight loss among participants in a commercial weight 
loss program. Such evaluations are rare and therefore welcome. Furthermore, it is even rarer for such 
long-term follow-ups to be conducted. The study is well described but I believe over-interprets the findings given some of the inherent methodological limitations. 
My major criticism is that all of the data were based on self-report. Furthermore, weight at the beginning
of the program was recalled from many years before. Therefore there is no way of verifying the accuracy of past or current weights and therefore of actual weight loss achieved or maintained. 
Subjects may have overestimated their starting weight and underestimated their current weight, making 
it look like they did better than they did. The authors note that body weight and weight loss could be 
verified in 11% of the sample, but no further information is provided and 11% of the sample is obviously 
inadequate to know how accurate the sample was overall. Adjusting all body weights for self-reported 
error is desirable but is immaterial to this problem. Therefore the authors need to be much more 
tentative in drawing conclusions about the likely effectiveness of their intervention. 
Other points requiring attention: 
At the beginning of the paper the authors refer to "commercial programs" but most of the research they 
then mention was not based on commercial programs. 
A recent study by Lowe et al. (Int. Journal of Obesity, 2001) is directly relevant to the present study and 
should be mentioned. 
At the end of the first paragraph the authors refer to 2 follow-up periods but report only one result. 
In several places the authors have 1-2 sentence paragraphs. This should be avoided. 
At the bottom of p. 6 the authors refer to "length of weight maintenance" - how is this defined? 
On p. 12, the subjects who dropped our of the Trevose program probably did fairly well not because of 
the Trevose program but because this program only admits highly motivated individuals. 
The second paragraph on p. 13 should be rewritten to indicate that the only reason that larger weight 
losses are associated with greater weight maintenance is that more weight was lost to begin with. 
On bottom of p. 15, most research indicates that weight cycling does not have ill health effects; for the 
few that do suggest this, it is unclear if volitional weight loss is to blame. 
Competing interests:
I am a paid consultant to Weight Watchers. 
I have received a research grant from Novartis Nutrition Co. and may soon be funded by Slim-Fast.