JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:"You can't always get what you want". Study designs for clinical
investigation in endometriosis: from doctrine to practicability
Version:1Date:28 March 2015
Reviewer: Ronald Battt
Reviewer's report:
“YOU CAN’T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT”
STUDY DESIGNS FOR CLINICAL INVESTIGATION IN ENDOMETRIOSIS:
FROM DOCTRINE TO PRACTICABILITY
Vercellini P, Somigliana E, Cortinovis I, Bracco B, de Braud L, Dridi D, Milani S.
This is a carefully designed study that addresses the pressing problem of
recruitment of patients for randomized controlled trials (RCT) on treatment for
pelvic pain by a well-established tertiary academic outpatient endometriosis clinic
which attract a sophisticated patient population. This survey investigation of 500
consecutive self-referring patients is well designed, has adequate power,
addresses an important problem via hypothetical questions on two short
questionnaires, was completed by all 500 patients, obtained clear-cut results,
and may set the tone and type for future clinical trials in this particular academic
outpatient endometriosis clinic. This study addresses a fundamental problem
facing all academic clinical investigators of endometriosis-associated pelvic pain.
Unfortunately, as the authors indicate, the possibility of extrapolating the findings
to a broader, heterogeneous population would be low. Nonetheless, this study
sets a benchmark that may be replicated in other academic endometriosis
research clinics to their advantage.
Ronald E. Batt, MD
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
The State University of New York at Buffalo
Buffalo, New York USA
Reviewer's report
Title:"You can't always get what you want". Study designs for clinical
investigation in endometriosis: from doctrine to practicability
Version:1Date:16 April 2015
Reviewer: Ertan ES Saridogan
Reviewer's report:
This interesting manuscript describes responses of 500 self referring women with
endometriosis to a survey regarding their potential willingness to participate in a
research project comparing drug therapies or surgery. The results indicate that
women are unlikely to agree to participate in single or double blind RCTs and
that they may be more willing to agree to take part in patient preference trials.
The manuscript is well written and includes a detailed discussion. It may be
useful to include an additional table to give a summary of the responses to make
it easier for the reader to view the data.
The survey was designed in a way that the women were asked to choose one of
the options and that it was not possible to select more than one. This probably
explains that the most popular option was the patient preference trial. It might
have been better to allow women to choose more than one option to determine
what type of trial designs would be acceptable, although some of these may not
be their first choice. In addition, the questions could have been structured in a
less 'leading' format so that what is acceptable or unacceptable would have been
easier to determine. With these alternative designs, it would have been clearer to
the researchers as to whether randomisation was absolutely unacceptable or
would be a possibility.
The current survey design resulted in a bleak picture for RCTs and the authors
discuss alternative trial designs in great detail in the discussion section. They try
to justify why less than ideal design options might be acceptable. Whilst doing
this the limitations of the patient preference and pre-post trials have not been
given to a significant level. This would be important to include.
The comments in the conclusion section are in contrast with the overall tone of
the discussion section and that the discussion section would benefit from some
degree of revision to make it more in line with the final conclusions.
The study surveyed mainly 'self referring patients' and this in itself can create
significant bias. This point is discussed in the discussion section.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:"You can't always get what you want". Study designs for clinical
investigation in endometriosis: from doctrine to practicability
Version:2Date:25 June 2015
Reviewer: Ertan ES Saridogan
Reviewer's report:
The authors seem to have revised the manuscript in line with the referees'
comments. I would suggest tidying up the two sentences in lines 291-295, as it is
difficult to follow whta is being said there.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
N/A
Reviewer's report
Title:Autoethnography and severe perineal trauma - an unexpected journey from
disembodiment to embodiment.
Version:2Date:22 October 2014
Reviewer: Lesley Barclay
Reviewer's report:
As suggested in my review and text there are some corrections that need to be
made. Discretionary revisions would be tied to my editorial comments attached
but it is required that this paper be described more correctly. I would not define it
as a mixed methods study, this paper is about authoethnography as a method
and stands alone as a report on the use of authethnography in a study.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that i have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Autoethnography and severe perineal trauma - an unexpected journey from
disembodiment to embodiment.
Version:3Date:12 March 2015
Reviewer: Lesley Barclay
Reviewer's report:
1 My major concern was how this study was part of a mixed methods study as
this was not clear nor had it been articulated well. I accept and understand this
now as breadth of the mixed methods project has now ben described; therefore I
have no other substantive concerns. I think the paper reads well and the
corrections have strengthened it.
2 Editorial comments have been addressed
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Autoethnography and severe perineal trauma - an unexpected journey from
disembodiment to embodiment.
Version:3Date:31 March 2015
Reviewer: Gill Thomson
Reviewer's report:
All the suggested revisions have either been addressed, or a clear rationale was
provided as to why it was not appropriate to do so. In my opinion, the manuscript
is ready for publication.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Sexual and reproductive health services for women with disability: a
qualitative study with service providers in the Philippines
Version:2Date:11 August 2015
Reviewer: Gillian Eastgate
Reviewer's report:
This is a qualitative study of health professionals in the Philippines regarding
attitudes towards provision of sexual and reproductive health services to women
with disabilities. As such this study illustrates an area in which there is little
pre-existing research relating to the Philippines. The authors have undertaken a
thorough review of evidence relating to similar service provision issues in other
parts of the world including other south-east Asian countries.
The study is well designed and well described. The research question is clear.
The sample size is fairly small, though not out of the size range of comparable
qualitative studies. No mention is made regarding data saturation i.e. whether
new themes were still being raised towards the end of the data collection period.
This should be included. Participant selection was not in any way random, but
this is recognised and addressed in the report. Data analysis appears to have
been performed by a range of people allowing for triangulation.
The reporting of results was very interesting reading including many quotes that
were very telling and at times quite moving.
The discussion and conclusions are well related to the results reported. Some
relevant recommendations are made.
The report is well written and easy to comprehend. My main concern is that at
well over 6,000 words, it is a little long. However, I am unaware of the maximum
article length for this journal. If the article is over the word limit, I would
recommend editing evenly across sections, while conserving as many of the
direct quotes as possible.
A few grammar points (though this may not be in the job description for a
reviewer):
Line 83 ‘intersectional’- I am not aware of the existence of this word. I wonder
whether a better expression would be something like ‘discrimination across
multiple sectors’
Line 91-92: suggest ‘to have recognition of their rights….. and physical integrity’
would read better
Line 142: ‘effected’ should be ‘affected’
Overall, this is a valuable and well conducted study that adds to the body of
knowledge in this sadly neglected area. It is particularly valuable in that it has
been conducted in a ‘developing’ country struggling to provide basic health care.
I would recommend publication subject to the minor considerations above.
Major compulsory revisions: none
Minor essential revisions: Correction of spelling/grammar points as above
Consider editing down if over the stated word limit for the journal
Comment about data saturation or otherwise
Discretionary revisions: none
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:"I need to terminate this pregnancy even if it will take my life": Effect of
being denied legal abortion on women's lives in Nepal
Version:1Date:29 June 2015
Reviewer: Marika Guggisberg
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions necessary
see attachment
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:"I need to terminate this pregnancy even if it will take my life": Effect of
being denied legal abortion on women's lives in Nepal
Version:1Date:23 July 2015
Reviewer: Mridula Shankar
Reviewer's report:
Report attached.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Assessing regional differences in unmet need for contraception in Kenya:
Insights from survey data
Version:2Date:10 May 2014
Reviewer: Uchenna Umeh
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
1) The objectives were not clearly stated along with the scope, settings and
design
2) All the results were not referred to in the discussion.
3) The limitations of the study were not discussed.
4) Though the references were comprehensive, not all were cited.
Minor essential revisions
1) Some paragraphs were started with a table eg 3rd and 5th paragraphs of the
result were started with tables.
2) In the discussion previous works done on the topic were not compared with
the findings in this study
Discretionary Revision
1) Too many tables were used
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that i have no competing interest
Reviewer's report
Title:Assessing regional differences in unmet need for contraception in Kenya:
Insights from survey data
Version:2Date:19 May 2014
Reviewer: Dieudonne Muhoza
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Methodology: The simple logistic regression used does not compare the
different regions. That is why the pattern of each variable is almost the same for
all regions.
I would suggest a multinomial regression analysis with national level as
reference. This method allows to see how low and high unmet need regions
deviate from the national average.
In addition, the section “methodology” should be more developed by presenting
the all methods used with some references about those methods.
2. There is a difference in the level of unmet need between paragraph 1 (section
bivariate results) and table 1. Shall we get reasons?
3. Table 4: Looking at the table, low unmet regions have higher means (in
education, wealth, etc.) where we would expect lower score. Shall authors
indicate how they computed these means? There is no indication on the
methodology. In addition, more interpretations of this table may be important to
show the difference in characteristics of population between these two regions.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Harmonize the presentation of references.
2. Figure1: The author shall check the legend of this figure. It seems that there is
inversion of X and y axis labels.
3. Tables 2 and 3: For all variables, the best position category is
chosen as reference category. Shall the authors provide explanations why for the
variable age the older group has been taken?
- Discretionary Revisions
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I don’t have any competing interest.
Reviewer's report
Title:Assesment of Knowledge and Practice about Menustrual Hygiene among
Secondary High School Girls in Western Ethiopia
Version:2Date:23 March 2015
Reviewer: Harshad Thakur
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The topic of the study is very interesting but after going through the article, it
was very much disappointing.
2. The rationale for the stated objectives is not mentioned.
3. The objectives of the study needs to be specific. Author should mention what
will be added to the current knowledge.
4. The scientific basis of knowledge and practice score is not mentioned nor any
reference is given.
5. Better presentation and organization of the main text especially results and
discussion is required. Author discusses same things in discussion which were
already mentioned in Results.
6. Author needs to give the results and discussion as per the objectives of the
study.
7. The relation between knowledge and practice needs to be probed.
8. There are many grammar and language errors which also needs correction
(starting from the title - Assesment mentioned instead of Assessment).
9. There are many repetitions in the manuscript.
10. The references do not seem to follow the guidelines.
11. The limitations of the study need to be expanded.
12. Overall the article is of poor quality. It will require complete and substantial
revision and author might be asked to resubmit and further review is necessary.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Assesment of Knowledge and Practice about Menustrual Hygiene among
Secondary High School Girls in Western Ethiopia
Version:2Date:25 March 2015
Reviewer: Mitike Molla
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
The authors addressed an important problem that affects school girls in Ethiopia.
The MS is well structured and interesting to read. The authors are advised to
work on the following before accepted for publication:
Abstract:
1. Methods section the study area is not indicated
2. Conclusion should show the implication of your findings (should answer the so
what?)
Main text
3. Background first paragraph ,(72-76) generalizes the problem, you need to
show the problem clearly by place and person. some of your statements need
reference 76)
4. Can you clearly indelicate any evidence that is related with infection and
menstrual hygiene?
Methods:
5. How dis you know and select the girls that have their menarche ?
Results
:
6. In the knowledge part: the authors mentioned that " --- knew menstruation is
blood that have foul smelling? Does this blood really have a foul smell?
in line 219 it is stated that : Three hundred thirty (39.9%) of the respondents had
good practice on menstrual hygiene.
Majority (82.2%) of girls’ were using pads and two third (66.2%) of girls’ were
using napkin
as absorbent material during menstruation. More than half 220 (52.9%) of the
respondents were
clean clothes with soap and water. Nearly half (45.2%) of the respondents dry
their washed
clothes in sunlight. Half (51.9%) of girls’ will change their pads or clothes three
and above
times during menstruation.
7.. what is the denominator
8.. what is the difference between pads and napkins?
9. What is the significance of changing cloths three to four times in a day? Do
you mean cloths used as an absorbent?
10.. What do you mean by disposing their used napkins correctly?
11.. Can you see the category others again and reveres the reference category
and see the association? I assume housewives are less educated and dis
empowered themselves less they help their daughters in rural set-up
Discussion and conclusion
The authors need to work on the discussion and the conclusion part again.The
discussion is repeating all the results and then comparing with other studies, the
data is hardly interpreted and discussed . For example maternal education and
knowledge is marginally associated, this should be described and so on. Again in
the conclusion, it would be good if the implication is capitalized.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Reviewer's report
Title:Motivations and barriers to cervical cancer screening among HIV infected
women in HIV care: a qualitative study
Version:1Date:23 March 2015
Reviewer: Lisa T. Wigfall
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? YES
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described? YES
3. Are the data sound? YES
4. Do the figures appear to be genuine, i.e. without evidence of manipulation?
N/A - no figures were used, only one table
5. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? YES
6. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data? YES
7. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
8. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
9. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? YES
10. Is the writing acceptable? YES
- Discretionary Revisions
- only minor revision noted, which was citation on page 1 needs to be reversed
(6,7) versus (7,6)
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report
Title:Motivations and barriers to cervical cancer screening among HIV infected
women in HIV care: a qualitative study
Version:2Date:14 July 2015
Reviewer: Megan Huchko
Reviewer's report:
The authors have adequately addressed most of the issues brought out in the
previous review.
As a compulsory revision: In Table 1, would change the examples of questions in
the columns to actual question format, rather than "they were asked." Also, the
boxes now saying "same issues as never screened" should say "identical
questions" and the last row under Never Screened, should say n/a.
I would still recommend as a discretionary revision that the authors improve the
description of parallel vs integrated services (page 1, lines 74-77), as the
evidence is not straightforward that integrated services improve cervical cancer
or SRH outcomes.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence, determinants and clinical correlates of vitamin D deficiency
among women of child bearing age in Lahore, Pakistan
Version:2Date:14 May 2015
Reviewer: Shelley Gorman
Reviewer's report:
The question posed by the authors is well defined. This is a study of the genetic
and social determinants of vitamin D status in Pakistani women. The data is
sound and results tables appear genuine; however, a major aim of the study was
to examine the genetic contribution towards vitamin D status, and it is concerning
that the authors acknowledge that the study was probably not adequately
powered to do so.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The methods are well-described; however, the assay used to measure
circulating 25(OH)D is sub-optimal. Justify why you used the IDS immunoassay
to measure 25(OH)D. A DEQAS-standardised LCMS method is the
much-preferred assay. How precise was this assay? And reproducible? Did you
use the same batch of assay kits, as there can be considerable batch-to-batch
variability using this assay?
2. I also have concerns about what time of year were participants tested for
25(OH)D. Were there any seasonal effects on serum 25(OH)D if measured
throughout the year? Did you ‘deseasonalise’ data when determining the
contribution of the various genotypes and other factors to circulating 25(OH)D?
3. Justify the age limits for exclusion/inclusion.
4. Is milk supplemented with vitamin D in Pakistan? If so, is there a standardised
quantity?
Minor Essential Revisions
The data is on the whole well presented; but the following should be addressed:
5. The columns of Table 1 need headers.
6. How common were each of the genotypes among the population tested?
Please add percentage data to Table 3.
7. The term ‘working ladies’ should be changed to Employed (in Table 4 and
throughout).
8. I am not sure how the results presented in Tables 5-8 add to the study, and
most of this information is already presented in the text. Delete?
9. I think the title could be slightly modified to reflect the actual determinants for
vitamin D status detected in this study.
10. The writing is acceptable but check for minor type setting errors (eg. line 26)
throughout the manuscript and tables/figures.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.