JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Breast cancer-preventive behaviors: exploring Iranian women's experiences
Version:1Date:24 January 2014
Reviewer: M. Tish Knobf
Reviewer's report:
Major Revisions
1. The background on the availability and prevalence of mammogrpahy
screening in Iran should be included even though the focus of the study was on
preventive behaviors. Similalry, the routine physician visits for preventive care by
women would provide isnight.
2. This study was on understanding preventive behaviors of Iranian women and
the questions were all related to preventive behaviors. However, the analysis did
not focus only on preventive behaviors but addressed attitudes, and
mammorgaphy (which is early detectiona dn screenign NOT prevention).
3. While content analysis was cited, the analysis appeared somewhat superficial
and not well integrated.
4. Conclusions went beyond what was reported as findings.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
no conflict, nothing to declare
Reviewer's report
Title:Breast cancer-preventive behaviors: exploring Iranian women's experiences
Version:1Date:15 February 2014
Reviewer: GIAMPIERO CAPOBIANCO
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is well written and the topic is very interesting.
There are no minor revisions
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
No to all of the above
Reviewer's report
Title:Differential effect of Wealth Quintile on Modern Contraceptive Use and
Fertility: Evidence from Malawian Women
Version: 1Date:3 June 2013
Reviewer: abdulkarim mairiga
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer's report
-----------------
- Major Compulsory Revisions
Referencing section need to be reviewed by the authors to conform to the BCM
requirement
- Minor Essential Revisions
1. Title page: E-mail addresses of the co-authors not indicated (editorial issue).
2. Background: a) Missing words that makes sentences vague e.g. 2nd
paragraph,
second sentence.
b) On the same paragraph, 4th sentence need to be supported by reference
3. Methods: a) Data collection: 3rd Paragraph, What did the figures
“5085 and 2290 women aged 15 - 49” represent? Which are the poorest and is
for the richest ?
b) Definition of key: i) 1st sentence on defining ever use of MC
should be corrected
ii) Same thing on defining current use of MC, the sentence should be corrected
iii) second sentence under the definition of WQ should be supported with
references of the studies. So also the 3rd sentence need to be referenced for
further enquiry.
4. Results: What is CEB? This has not been explained anywhere
5. References: Does not conform to the journal (BMC Women Health)
requirement
- Discretionary Revisions
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Differential effect of Wealth Quintile on Modern Contraceptive Use and
Fertility: Evidence from Malawian Women
Version:1Date:1 December 2013
Reviewer: Abhishek Kumar
Reviewer's report:
6. Major Compulsory revision
14 Minor essential revisions
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Differential effect of Wealth Quintile on Modern Contraceptive Use and
Fertility: Evidence from Malawian Women
Version:2Date:24 January 2014
Reviewer: Paul Hewson
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
I think the authors need to carefully set out their models, these aren't the easiest
to understand nor are they the most familiar.
I was a little concerned that multinomial logistic was the most appropriate - the
categories are not mutually exclusive. As I understand it the multinomial probit is
widely used in marketing work to model outcomes where consumers may switch
brands. Again, clarity in writing out the models and the definitions used may
make it clear that the categories used are mutually exclusive or that there is
some overlap.
I was a little concerned that there may be some multicollinearity in the
explanatory variables (the various age categories - for example age at first birth,
age at first marriage) and that this may inflate the standard errors considerably. It
may be worth considering which is the most appropriate proxy variable.
I couldn't understand why you used highest and lowest quintile only. Why not use
all five quintiles and possibly code this as an ordinal factor. Wouldn't that give
you a larger sample with no additional costs?
In general though, I think this is very well conducted modelling exercise.
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 have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Differential effect of Wealth Quintile on Modern Contraceptive Use and
Fertility: Evidence from Malawian Women
Version:2Date:11 February 2014
Reviewer: Abhishek Kumar
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions: 00
Minor Essential Revisions: 02
Discretionary Revisions: 01
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' below.
Reviewer's report
Title:Differential effect of Wealth Quintile on Modern Contraceptive Use and
Fertility: Evidence from Malawian Women
Version:3Date:18 February 2014
Reviewer: Paul Hewson
Reviewer's report:
Please note, I was suggesting you might like to consider multinomial probit.
There is literature in the econometric field I have seen which suggests this allows
you to model non-mutually exclusive data. Hopefully this makes little difference to
your results, but is an interesting topic for future work.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Dual method contraception among Human Immunodeficiency Virus positive
parturient in south eastern Nigeria
Version:3Date:24 November 2013
Reviewer: Karl Peltzer
Reviewer's report:
Major:
-Is this a prospective or cross-sectional study?
-Under measure it says "An interviewer administered semi-structure
questionnaire was used to obtain information on the socio demographic
characteristics, as well as the practice of dual contraceptive methods and factors
influencing its practice." and in the results somewhere consistency of dual use is
reported.
The measures need to be clearly described. How is dual contraceptive or
HIV/STI defined? Is this concurrently? or consequtively?
-what was the time frame for the assessment of dual use, past six weeks?
-not sure of the relevance of dual use, six weeks postpartum; is there no
postpartum abstinence in Eastern Nigeria, Enugu
Minor:
numerous spelling mistakes
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: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Reviewer's report
Title:Dual method contraception among Human Immunodeficiency Virus positive
parturient in south eastern Nigeria
Version:3Date:9 January 2014
Reviewer: Norman Goldstuck
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for asking me to review this paper.
This is the first paper I have ever been asked to review where the title makes no
sense.
Even if we correct the grammar and add an "of" after method and an "s" after
parturient we are none the wiser.
We glean that we are dealing with HIV infected woman who give birth and for
some reason are using 2 methods of contraception.
By reading the paper further we discern that they are referring to the practice of
getting HIV positive women who have recently given birth to use barrier methods
in addition to known effective types of contraception. One to prevent pregnancy
the other to protect against HIV transmission.
They fail to make this distinction and it becomes almost impossible to follow parts
of the paper and tables after that.
If an HIV positive woman who is sterilised uses condoms they are not being used
as contraceptives.
They fail to grasp that barrier methods are contraceptives(and barriers to
infection) and barriers to infection only in other instances.
The description of the methods is clear and I think the methods & the rest of the
paper have been written by different authors.
I have not attempted to evaluate the methodology because of the confused
introduction.
The premise is good and this would be interesting to read if it was presented
properly.
The paper needs a total intelligible rewrite.
Major revision-rewrite needed.
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:
No competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Dual contraceptive methods for pregnancy and disease prevention among
HIV-infected women in South East Nigeria
Version:4Date:8 February 2014
Reviewer: Karl Peltzer
Reviewer's report:
The title says "Dual contraceptive methods for pregnancy and disease
prevention..."
Not sure if "dual contraceptive methods" is correct because you refer to the dual
purpose pregnancy and disease prevention
The Nigerian PMTCT guidelines, as below, refer to dual method for dual
protection
• Promoting condom use combined with a more effective method of contraception
(dual method) for dual protection from HIV and other STIs and from unplanned
pregnancies as an effective strategy to prevent HIV transmission
So is it "dual or two methods for pregnancy and HIV prevention"
Please, clarify what is meant .
Some website seem not accessible, WHO,...please, check.
Still a number of grammatical errors
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Reviewer's report
Title:The effect of physical activity and body mass index on menopausal
symptoms: a cross-sectional study in primary care
Version:4Date:9 January 2014
Reviewer: PASCAL IZZICUPO
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
1. Recommended references are read and the one in English is included as one
of the references. As the reviewer pointed out ethnical and cultural differences
seem to have an important role in menopausal symptoms. We tried to emphasize
it in the background part of the manuscript.
REVISION OK
2. “Sitting time” in IPAQ is also provided as the reviewer recommended within the
results section.
REVISION OK
3. found that the assumptions of regression analysis (eg. normality assumption,
we transformed the independent variable, dependent variable, or both. And we
conducted a regression analysis, using the transformed variables and compute
the coefficient of determination (R2), based on the transformed variables. But the
transformation was not successful.) were not met. When we forced modeling we
found that the coefficients of determination (R2) were between 6.5-8.5% for total
MRS, and its subscales. We would be so pleased to do if there would be any
more recommendations.
REVISION OK
Minor essential revisions
4. As we measured the participants’ weight and height with a standardized
instrument, (Mewa Gmbtl/Schwerin-M318800). We add the information related to
the instrument in the method part.
PLEASE, REMOVE "The BMI was calculated by measuring weight and heigh"
FROM INSTRUMENTATION AND DATA COLLECTION
5. The sentence is corrected as recommended.
OK
6. Concerned reference was in Turkish, so we prefer to refer to an international
one and updated the data with this reference. The Turkish reference was
replaced by “Prevalence of hot flushes and night sweats around the world: a
systematic review” . And the sentence with semicolon is rewritten for better
understanding.
OK
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:Preventive health care among HIV-positive women in a Utah HIV/AIDS
clinic: A retrospective cohort study
Version:1Date:16 January 2014
Reviewer: Lisa Wigfall
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions: None
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. In my experience, papilloma virus is one word. The authors should verify and
revise if need be.
2. Both "HIV positive" and "HIV-positive" are used. This should be consistent
throughout the text and ideally match the description of seronegative
counterparts, which from what I recall were consistently referred to as "HIV
negative" (i.e. not hyphenated).
Discretionary Revisions:
1. This is a very well written manuscript. The relationship between aging and
increased risk for both of these chronic conditions combined with the fact that
almost half (48.5%) of the sample is 40+ years old further underscores the
author's focus on the need for more preventive health among persons living with
HIV/AIDS. However, the disproportionate burden of HIV/AIDS among black
females and Latinas raises a few concerns for this reviewer. These include the
following:
a. The majority of the women in this study appear to be white (68.2%) and quite a
few are Non-English or Spanish speaking (21.9%). These sample characteristics
raises concerns for me, especially without some description of the context of
HIV/AIDS in Utah.
b. I also believe that it is important to convey to the reader the potential role that
the use of certain drugs (e.g. protease inhibitors) play with regards to comorbid
conditions such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes. My concern is raised
even more given the disproportionate burden of both of these chronic conditions
among blacks and Hispanics, which this sample of women is largely white
(68.2%) and non-Hispanic (21.3%).
2. Although patient-provider communication barriers are introduced, there is no
literature to support what some of these barriers may include. This should be
added.
3. On page 6, the term "comorbidities" should be clarified. While I could presume
that the authors are referring to CVD and diabetes, I still think that this warrants
further clarification.
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:Inter-correlation of knowledge, attitude, and osteoporosis preventive
behaviors in women around the age of peak bone mass
Version:1Date:20 October 2013
Reviewer: Mário Rui MASCARENHAS
Reviewer's report:
The question posed by the authors is well defined, the discussion and
conclusions are well balanced and adequately supported by their data.
Major Compulsory Revisions
Statistical analysis: When is P-value of less than 0.15 accepted as a trend to be
statistically significant: in evry analyses?
Minor Essential Revisions
The author must correct some spelling mistakes, such as: datausing (data using),
inskin (in skin) and some others.
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:
No personal or financial relationship with other people or organizations.
Reviewers should disclose any financial competing interests but also any
non-financial competing interests that may cause them embarrassment were
they to become public after the publication of the manuscript.
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report
Title:Inter-correlation of knowledge, attitude, and osteoporosis preventive
behaviors in women around the age of peak bone mass
Version:1Date:27 November 2013
Reviewer: Santiago Palacios
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions.
It is a simple but well-structured and interesting study. From this study are taken
practical conclusions in respect of prevention of osteoporosis.
My only comment is that the figures are not needed since they could be
explained in the text of in a table.
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:Health related quality of life in patients in dialysis after renal graft loss.
Effect of Gender.
Version:1Date:20 October 2013
Reviewer: Karin Schenck-Gustafsson
Reviewer's report:
I have just some discretionary comments:
The patient cohort represents almost 1/3 of the prevalent dialysis patients in
Norway and with the interventions performed at the same centre.
Despite the relative small number of female patients it is still one of the largest
cohorts internationally. There was also a the high proportion of women
resuming dialysis after functional graft loss. Losing the graft seems to influence
QOL in females more negatively than in males. The authors could try to
speculate about the reasons to this a bit more:
why is there gender differences in general in the graft- and patient survival,
how does the inequity in waiting time for a retransplantation look like in Norway
and other countries .
Most patients were Caucasian and the transplantation and dialysis rates are high
in Norway, do the authors think that the findings might be the same in other
countries?
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:Health related quality of life in patients in dialysis after renal graft loss.
Effect of gender.
Version:2Date:3 February 2014
Reviewer: Cynthia Gross
Reviewer's report:
All my major concerns have been addressed in the revision.
Minor points -
1. First sentence in Abstract - replace has with have.
2. Methods in Abstract - logically, the statement regarding conduct of separate
analyses by gender should follow the sentence about examining interactions with
gender and loss.
3. Page 10 – older age associated with better cognitive function – comment on
this anti-intuitive finding
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 no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Psychosocial factors and attendance at a population-based mammography
screening program in a cohort of Swedish women.
Version: 2Date:23 August 2013
Reviewer: Imre Boncz
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Statistical results are presented as odd ratios which is acceptable, however,
significance ('p' value) is not mentioned. I strongly advise the authors to present
the significance of the factors.
Discretionary Revisions
'Discussion' section of the manusript is very long (5 pages) compared to results
(2 pages). Please consider to shorten the discussion section.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest 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 declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Psychosocial factors and attendance at a population-based mammography
screening program in a cohort of Swedish women.
Version: 2Date:20 September 2013
Reviewer: Magdalena Esteva
Reviewer's report:
Title: Psychosocial factors and attendance at a ......
Langerlund M et al
This is an interesting paper on psychosocial factor which can explain breast
cancer screening programe attendance.
I think this paper is very well developed and written even though I think it needs
some major compulsory review before publishing.
1.- In the introduction, pg 4 paragraph 2, authors declare that psychosocial
aspect have been examined in other countries, Bibliography given is mainly on
Anglo-Saxon countries but there are evidence of this factors in other countries
like Italia or Spain. I myself have some paper or other colleagues from Catalunya
as Carme Borrel, Baré et al..... have also results on this subject.
2.- It is not clear the unit of analysis of this study. In the section Measures and
definitions, authors declare that the unit of analysis is the individual
mammography invitation (69.194 invitations) but afterwards in the tables they
present results in terms of women 11.409 women. This has to be clarified
because I cannot see clearly. Also the outcome variable. If the women is the unit
of analysis, then the women has repeated measures and outcome should be the
% of invitations attended. If the unit of analysis is the invitation then the outcome
is the invitation attended?. Then tables and flowchart should report invitations not
women.
3.-I am not familiar with the Generalized estimating Equation models then further
review by a statistician is needed.
4 In strengths and limitations it has been observed that a large percentage of
women were born in Sweden. That means that immigrant women mainly form no
developed countries are excluded. How this can affect results?
Minor revision:
References 39 and 40: the name of the Journal is not abbreviated
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.