JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Women, poverty, and adverse maternal outcomes in Nairobi, Kenya
Version: 4Date:7 October 2010
Reviewer: Katherine Sorsdahl
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript is very well written and contributes to the literature in a positive
way. The authors are correct in that much of the literature on this topic is
quantitative in nature. However, in addition to some small editorial concerns (just
requires a detailed read through), including the following may add value:
1. It is not clear whether or not a program was used to analyze the qualitative
data? (E.g. NVivo)
2. Normally in qualitative research when a quotation is referenced a little more
information is provided (e.g. age). However, how the authors included the names
of some of the participants was a pleasant addition.
2. Mental health was not included in any form in this study. Prenatal maternal
stress (PNMS) has been linked with adverse health outcomes. It is possible that
mental health was simply not mentioned by the women in the interviews
(although IPV was mentioned, which has the potential to result in mental health
concerns), which could be a result of low mental health literacy (see work by
Anthony Jorm and colleagues). If so, this could be a limitation since there is a
vast amount of literature available on the link between poverty and mental health
(see Lund, C., Breen, A., Flisher, A., Kakuma, R., Corrigall, J., Joska, J., Swartz,
L., Patel, V. (2010). Poverty and common mental disorders in low and middle
income countries: A systematic review. Social Science and Medicine. 71:
517-528).
3. After reading the paper it stuck me that a potential implication of the present
study is to provide further training to traditional birth attendants in the community
since they are well respected and frequently utilized in the community.
Interventions targeted at service providers in the hospitals should also be
provided given the findings of this 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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Women, poverty and adverse maternal outcomes in Nairobi, Kenya
Version: 5Date:8 November 2010
Reviewer: Katherine Sorsdahl
Reviewer's report:
The authors have done an exceptional job in responding to the reviewer
comments. This article should be accepted for publication in its present form.
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Women, poverty and adverse maternal outcomes in Nairobi, Kenya
Version: 5Date:11 November 2010
Reviewer: Cyril Engmann
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
I have re-reviewed this important manuscript which reads much better now.
Although the authors have responded to many of the methodologic issues I
brought up in my previous review there are still a number of questions I posed
which they have not responded to. Additionally some clarification of their
revisions is needed, before making this manuscript publishable.
MAJOR COMPULSORY REVISIONS.
1. The authors state that "in-depth interviews were held with 12
purposively-selected women reporting personal experiences of
pregnancy-related 'near-misses' and complications" on page 8. Yet, in table 1,
they describe 12 IDI with randomly selected women. This discrepancy needs to
be reconciled. It may also be easier for the authors to construct a flow diagram of
the study sample, identification, recruitment and sampling used for FGD and IDI.
2. "Four different interview guides targeting 4 different samples....were used"
page 8. Why four samples, and why four different interview guides?
3. Were these guides for FGD or IDI's?
4. Were these interview guides pretested?
5. Can the authors clarify how they are sure the themes, categories, linkages and
properties they discuss are complete if data saturation was not reached during
their interviews.
6. Please explicitly address questions 2.7, 2.8, 2.13, 2.15, 2.17, 2.22, and 2.27 of
my previous review.
7.
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' below
Reviewer's report
Title:Sexual coercion among married women in Nepal
Version: 1Date:11 June 2010
Reviewer: Prof.Tefera Belachew
Reviewer's report:
None
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 below.
Reviewer's report
Title:Sexual coercion among married women in Nepal
Version: 3Date:2 August 2010
Reviewer: Richard de Visser
Reviewer's report:
It is pleasing to see that the authors have responded sensibly to the vast majority
of the points raised by me and the other reviewers. However, substantial
improvements would be needed before this manuscript could be published.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1] Presentation - I find it hard to accept the claim that the revised manuscript
“was edited by [a] professional native English speaker”, because the quality and
clarity of expression are still very poor and below the required standard.
Some points (some of which were made in my original review)
1a] The description of the study and findings should be written in the past tense
1b] Data is a plural term
1c] Check appropriate use of definite/indefinite articles (a, an, the, etc.)
2] Results - In the paragraph crossing from p.6 to p.7 the direction of all
associations should be explained or described. Simply stating that there was a
significant association is insufficient.
Minor Essential Revisions
3] Abstract - One sentence in the “results” section of the abstract suggests an
interaction effect (“husband is older than them by 5 years and consumed
alcohol”), but the analysis only focused on the individual items. This should be
fixed.
4] Introduction - In the second paragraph it is unclear how many husbands in the
studies in PNG, India, and Nepal had forced their wives into sex. The sentence
crossing from p.2 to p.3 is unclear, and suggests that being diagnosed with an
STI is a “risky sexual behaviour”.
5] Methods - In paragraph one, the reference to four districts is meaningless
unless the reader knows the total number of districts - 4 out of 8 means
something different than 4 out of 200.
6] Methods - The scale reliability (Cronbach alpha) should be given for the
composite measures referred to on p.5
7] Discussion - The end of the second paragraph on p.9 is very difficult to
comprehend and should be re-written.
8] References - Not all entries in the reference list conform to the journal style in
terms of numbers of authors (use “et al.” if more than 6), author initials, etc.
9] Table 1 - The footnote contains an error (p<0.5 should be p < .05)
10] Table 2 - The sample size should be given.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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 coercion among married women in Nepal
Version: 3Date:5 August 2010
Reviewer: Prof.Tefera Belachew
Reviewer's report:
I manuscript reads very well now. The authors have accommodated my cocerns.
I recommend it to be published.
I have no other comments
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:Sexual coercion among married women in Nepal
Version: 3Date:9 August 2010
Reviewer: Jamila Stockman
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
BACKGROUND
1.The second issue in the original review was not addressed: More recent
references should be provided to support the information presented in the
background section. Also, the authors may benefit from reading and citing review
paper that have focused on forced sex such as a recent article by Campbell et al.
2009.
2.Sexual coercion occurs on a continuum of severity. The definition provided for
sexual coercion in the background section is not sufficient, even with reference to
the first two citations. There are other references that provide a more accurate
definition of sexual coercion. This is along the same lines as point #4 in the
previous review.
METHODS
1.Were participants compensated?
RESULTS
1.The variables that were controlled for in the multivariate analysis should be
stated.
DISCUSSION
1.More recent US studies should be cited in the first paragraph of the discussion
section, that also show high levels of sexual coercion.
Additional revisions
1.In the background section, the first through third paragraphs should be edited
to address numerous grammatical errors. In addition, the second and third
sentences in the third paragraph should be revised for content.
2.In the methods section, the sentence beginning, “If the respondent answered
‘yes’ in at least one…” should be rephrased. There are very minor grammatical
errors in the methods and results section.
3.When reporting odds ratios in the multivariate analysis section, an ‘a’ can be
placed in front of ‘OR’ to denote adjusted odds ratio (e.g., ‘aOR).
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:Sexual coercion of married women in Nepal
Version: 5Date:4 October 2010
Reviewer: Chelsea Polis
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. As noted in a previous review, each stated reference should be relevant to the
issue requiring citation. As one example, several citations are specific to
childhood sexual abuse (a different phenomenon than sexual coercion by a
husband), and it is unclear why these references were included. It is impractical
to point out every reference that appears irrelevant, and the inclusion of articles
on childhood abuse is only one example. The authors should ensure that they
cite only articles with a clear focus on those issues in need of cited support.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Numbers in the abstract do not match numbers in the Table 2 in regards to
decision making about health care.
2. Methods section, first paragraph, third to last sentence: “women” should be
“woman” since you selected only one from each household.
3. Methods section, third paragraph, 2nd to last sentence: remove “any possible”
from this sentence.
4. Results section, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: description of age differences
doesn’t seem to fit with the table, since about 1/3 of women (32.3%) had
husbands more than 5 years older. The text implies that men in this group might
be EITHER younger or older.
Discretionary Revisions
1. The authors write in the abstract and conclusion: “Programs should focus on
education and women's empowerment to reduce sexual coercion and protect
women's health and rights so that the overall wellbeing of the family is
maintained and enhanced.” (emphasis mine). As noted previously, I disagree
with structuring this sentence in a way that might suggest that reducing the
incidence of sexual coercion of women is primarily for the purpose of protecting
the “overall wellbeing of the family,” rather than for the purpose of protecting
abused women’s health and rights. The authors do not provide any data or
evidence regarding the effect of domestic violence prevention on family
well-being, so why not simply truncate the sentence after the word “rights”?
2. I suggest deleting “Very” from the last sentence of the background section,
and start the sentence with “Limited information about …”
3. The authors provided information on the geographic location of the chosen
districts, but have not provided any context on how these regions may differ from
other parts of the country, or whether readers are intended to take their sample
as nationally representative. More context could help your readers better
understand how your results generalize to the rest of the population of married
women in Nepal.
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 coercion of married women in Nepal
Version: 5Date:12 October 2010
Reviewer: Richard de Visser
Reviewer's report:
The authors apper to have addressed all of the issues raised in my original
review
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:Cellulite and extracorporeal Shockwave therapy (CelluShock-2009) - a
Randomized Trial
Version: 4Date:9 September 2010
Reviewer: Santiago Palacios
Reviewer's report:
The protocol is very well done and I have no objection to its publication.
The only point I find it interesting to be added, would be the differentiation
between menopausal and postmenopausal patients in terms of results, and
within the premenopausal group, the identification of those who take oral
contraceptives.
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:Risk of Placental Abruption in Relation to Migraines and Headaches
Version: 1Date:17 June 2010
Reviewer: TSANG-TANG HSIEH
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions
Sanchez et al. performed a case control study to investigate the association
between maternal history of migraine or headache and placental abruption. They
found that a history of headache before or during pregnancy is associated with
an increased risk for placental abruption. In addition, women with migraine during
pregnancy are at increased risk, though not statistically significant, for placental
abruption.
The manuscript is well written with clear hypotheses and well described methods.
The strength of this study lies in its inclusion of large number of women with
placental abruption and use of a well-structured, standardized questionnaire to
collect essential information according to established diagnostic criteria for
migraine. Although the present study fails to demonstrate a statistical
significance in the association between maternal migraine and placental
abruption, the results derived from this study suggest a need for prospective
cohort studies to clarify the association between these two events. Furthermore,
it provides useful information for clinicians when counseling pregnant women
with a history of migraine or headache for adverse pregnancy outcomes.
The authors may consider including a recent paper by Hung et al (Risk factors for
palcental abruption in an Asian population, Reproductive Sciences
2007;14:59-65) in their introduction to provide a more general and global view
about the prevalence and risk factors for palcental abruption and its association
with adverse pregnancy 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:Risk of Placental Abruption in Relation to Migraines and Headaches
Version: 1Date:21 June 2010
Reviewer: gianni allais
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions
1) Page 6, last 2 sentences
It is not appropriate to show data pertaining to the results in the Method section.
It would be better to move the last 2 sentences to the Results section.
2) References
Ref # 30
Eur J Neurol and not Euro J Neurol
Ref #31
Cephalalgia 2004, 24 and not 44
Major compulsory revisions
1) Page 5
What’s the exact meaning of the sentence “using questions adapted from the de
CODE Genetics migraine questionnaire”? Did the Authors administer to patients
the DMQ3 validated version or did they modify the questionnaire? And eventually
how was this “modified questionnaire” validated for the diagnosis of migraine?
2) Results and Table II
The Authors diagnosed migraine with aura and migraine without aura patients,
but they did not mention patients with both migraine with and without aura. How
many patients presented this mixed clinical condition? How were these patients
considered in the analysis?
3) Results and Discussion
The Authors should add some considerations about the other types of
headaches they diagnosed in study populations and about their weight in
reaching significant ORs and aORs.
In Table II it is clearly indicated that 142/375 cases and 109/368 controls suffered
from headache in their life: but only 25/375 had physician diagnosed migraines
and only 49 (44+5) were diagnosed by the DMQ3 in cases; similarly in controls,
only 20/368 had physician diagnosed migraines and only 25 (23+2) were
diagnosed by DMQ3. Consequently, the great majority of headaches diagnosed
did not consist of migraines, but no data are given about their diagnostic class
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:Risk of Placental Abruption in Relation to Migraines and Headaches
Version: 1Date:16 July 2010
Reviewer: Vilho Hiilesmaa
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
1. In the discussion, you only deal with migraine.
I think headache in general deserves discussion – it is even included in the title
of the paper. Table 2 shows that more than 100 patients had “headache” and
only 44-23 had “migraine”.
Patients with “headache” also had statistically significant risk (OR 1.6 – 1.7) of
abruption.
Why patients with “headache” show the risk of abruption?
Please clarify in Table 2 whether patients with migraine are included or excluded
under each of the subtitles such as “Lifetime History of Headaches”, etc.
2. In the abstract/results, you write about “trend toward increased odds” for
abruption among women with migraine during pregnancy. The numbers,
however, are for migraine BEGINNING during pregnancy. Furthermore, these
figures are not statistically significant and therefore should not occupy such an
important place in the abstract. Please replace these figures (OR 2.21 95% CI
0.4-11) with something more meaningful.
Minor essential revisions
1. Please include the number of births in the hospitals during the 2-year study
period. What it the the incidence of abruption in Lima? Did you catch ALL
patients with abruption or just a fraction of them? If you did not include all of
them, is there any selection toward more severe/less severe cases of abruption?
2. I’d like to have the numbers of Caesarean sections for both groups, if possible.
They are good indicators for risk groups, and, in the controls, they reflect the
general obstetric practice in the area.
3. Is there any possibility to study whether severity of migraine episodes increase
the risk. Maybe there are too few cases for this.
4. In Methods/statistical analysis, please give a figure for the POWER of the
study. It is customary to say that the power of a study was N% to detect a
difference of x at significance level of y. Most commonly, a power of 80% is
considered appropriate.
5. I think you should emphasize in the discussion that comparing groups with an
obstetric disaster (abruption with loss of baby) with a happy family event
(controls) is an unusually unfavourable setting for a retrospective case-control
study. The recall bias may be more pronounced than in more “neutral” settings.
Discretionary revisions
1. Introduction: I think it is too long and contains too much material found in
textbooks of obstetrics. This may create aversion among busy readers who want
to go straight to the point. However, you may wish to leave it “as is” if there are
no space restrictions.
2. Table 1: The figures for smoking and Alcohol use seem strange: Only about
2% smokers and no less than 9% of alcohol users !! At least in Europe, 10-30 %
smoke and 1-2% use alcohol. Please check.
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:Risk of Placental Abruption in Relation to Migraines and Headaches
Version: 2Date:8 September 2010
Reviewer: gianni allais
Reviewer's report:
No further requests.
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:Risk-reducing strategies for women carrying BRCA1/2 mutations with a
focus on prophylactic surgery
Version: 3Date:21 May 2010
Reviewer: victor grann
Reviewer's report:
The article entitled Risk-reducing strategies for women carrying BRCA1/2
mutations with a focus on prophylactic surgery is an up-to-date analysis and
summary of recent advances in the field of decision making for women who have
tested positive for these mutations. It is well written for the most part and
provides the latest information for women who test positive for BRCA1/2 along
with their physicians.
The paper is essentially a review article that is for the most part well written and
presents the latest information as a guide to guide to genetic counselors and
physicians who care for high-risk women.
The methods of research are presented in a careful review of recent publications.
The discussion and conclusions are well balanced and the different interventions
and strategies are presented.
Concerns 1
Limitations while briefly mentioned are not explored in detail. The paper is
essentially a review article based on observational studies. It is imperative to add
a strong limitation section. An example of this is the 1st paragraph on page 4
(Reference 23) discussing the metaanalysis by Lee et al., on survival among
BRCA1/2 mutation carriers published in 2010 online. The entire paragraph which
is located on page 4 about survival of BRCA1 breast cancer patients at the very
beginning of the paper is misleading (Ref 21-23)without adding a detailed review
of Lee's paper (ref 23).
2. This raises concerns about other statements unless the authors are confident
that no other limitations exist.
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: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests'.