JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Fibroid explants reveal a higher sensitivity against MDM2 inhibitor nutlin-3
than matching myometrium
Version: 1Date:19 April 2011
Reviewer: Sakari K Vanharanta
Reviewer's report:
In their study Markowski et al. use patient-derived fibroid samples in vitro in order
to study the effects of nutlin-3, an MDM2-inihibitor, on the expression of various
markers of the MDM2-p53 pathway. As stated by the authors, uterine fibroids are
a major clinical problem, and novel treatment strategies are needed. To this end,
the present study adds some, although limited, new insights. The most
convincing data is presented in Figure 3, which clearly shows higher p14arf
expression in leiomyomas when compared to normal myometrium. The rest of
the data is less convincing and requires additional work. Data supporting the
main conclusion of the paper, that fibroid explants are more sensitive to nutlin-3
than corresponding normal myometrium, is shown only for one patient.
Major Revisions
1) The Introduction contains strong statements, which are not backed by data.
For example, the sentence “we have presented evidence that in leiomyoma
development the overexpression of p14Arf drives a negative feedback-loop
between p53 and MDM2 that governs the fate of the individual fibroid” is based
on correlative data and no evidence for a feedback loop was demonstrated.
2) The underlying hypothesis at the end of Introduction and again in the 4th
paragraph of Results is poorly written and confusing. How does the MDM2-p53
negative feedback loop result in fibroid proliferation? How does it result in
genomic integrity, especially when 22 of the 52 tumors studied have gross
chromosomal abnormalities, as stated in Table 1?
3) When studying several tumors, the appropriate way of showing statistics
would be to compare groups (e.g. normal myometrium vs. leiomyomas), instead
of showing statistics for each myometrium-leiomyoma pair separately. The third
paragraph of Results and Figure 3 is correct, but all the other Figures should be
corrected.
4) The Western blot in Figure 2 is of poor quality and it would be better to present
the different proteins clearly separately.
5) Do the fibroid explants express Ki67 protein? The data in Figure 5 and in
Table 2 should also contain immunostaining for Ki67. Also, statistical tests should
be provided for the immunostaining data.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:Fibroid explants reveal a higher sensitivity against MDM2 inhibitor nutlin-3
than matching myometrium
Version: 3Date:16 June 2011
Reviewer: Sakari K Vanharanta
Reviewer's report:
In the cover letter, the authors state that "To compare groups as suggested leads
to a loss of information because the samples from the individual patients display
a strong variation". The authors might want to consider paired tests that would
take baseline variation among individuals into account.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:Fibroid explants reveal a higher sensitivity against MDM2 inhibitor nutlin-3
than matching myometrium
Version: 3Date:5 July 2011
Reviewer: Gokce Toruner
Reviewer's report:
The authors have responded to the issues that I raised. That is why I recommend
acceptance of the paper.
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:Factors associated with treatment of women with osteoporosis or
osteopenia from a national survey
Version: 1Date:12 February 2011
Reviewer: Bernard Cortet
Reviewer's report:
Factor associated with treatment of women with osteoporosis or osteopenia from
a national survey.
Meadows et al.
General comments
It is an interesting study aiming to indicate the factors associated with the
prescription of antiosteoporotic drugs in “real life”. However the authors should
give some information regarding the database. How many people are in this
database? Does this database include people from the entire territory of US?.
Did the authors select a randomized subpopulation or according to criteria for
study entry, all the participants were asked for participating?
Specific comments
1. General clinical characteristics: For SF-12, the questions were asked at the
time of the interview (I suppose) or did the interviewer asked the patients at the
moment of diagnosis? In other words the question was (for example): “at present
could you indicate whether or not you have back pain” ……..or “When your
physician diagnosed osteoporosis your health status was….”
2. General clinical characteristics: Regarding family history of osteoporosis, some
details need to be added. Is the question related to a parental history of
osteoporosis only?. Is the question related to a family history of fracture
(particularly hip fracture)?.
3. General clinical characteristics: Some details should be added regarding the
definition of osteopenia and osteoporosis. Did the authors take into consideration
the reply from the patients only?. Did the authors require the result of DXA for
diagnosing osteopenia or osteoporosis. Was the diagnosis made by a MD?.
4. General clinical characteristics: For the use of corticosteroids, some details
should be added related to the duration. Also the authors should indicate whether
they took into consideration current users or also past users.
5. Data analysis: Why zoledronic acid was not included in the list of treatments.
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:
Here are my conflicts of interest:
Consulting fees, paid advisory boards, lecture fees, and/or grant support from
Servier, Novartis, Lilly, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Nycomed, Merck Sharp
and Dohme, Alliance for Better Bone Health, and Medtronic.
Reviewer's report
Title:Factors associated with treatment of women with osteoporosis or
osteopenia from a national survey
Version: 2Date:12 September 2011
Reviewer: Graeme Jones
Reviewer's report:
The paper is much improved but some areas still need modification.
1. the abstract conclusions don't reflect the data that well. GC are inadequately
ascertained as admitted by the authors so one cant judge how appropriate
prescribing is in this sample. Similarly, alcohol is only a risk factor in excess so
these could be deleted and the effect of smoking seems to be mainly through
BMD so these could be deleted.
2. osteoarthritis is negatively associated with osteoporosis so this is another
explanation for why they are less likely to have treatment.
3. Anxious patients are more concerned about side effects so may also be more
reluctant to take medication for this reason based on my clinical experience
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 function and chemotherapy in postmenopausal women with breast
cancer
Version: 1Date:26 April 2012
Reviewer: mary panjari
Reviewer's report:
Comments to editors
Reviewer’s report
Major compulsory revisions
This is an interesting paper and the area of sexual function amongst breast
cancer survivors is important. This can be published with a re-jig of the
discussion.
The main criticism I have is that the discussion is not well structured. The
discussion of the results should come first and there needs to be mention of
strengths and weaknesses of the study and a conclusion/further research
needed. There are a lot of results and these are not adequately discussed.
Minor essential revisions
Introduction para 1 &2 should be amalgamated as repeat ‘second most common
malignancy not necessary.
Word missing para 2 line 5 ‘ most...neoplasm’
Para3 first line postmenopausal women would sound better. The sentence
doesn’t read well.
Is the relationship controversial between rx and symptoms?
Need to state aim in the introduction
Materials and methods
Why is it nested study? Is it part of a larger study? The study is rather small with
only 24 breast cancer patients. Can you comment?
From how many patients were the participants recruited ie denominator
Inclusion criteria for control, why did they have to be HT free when the BC cases
were not? Was previous use acceptable?
Was prior diagnosis of BC acceptable?
Define ECOG
Results
Table 8 mention prior diagnosis but not mentioned elsewhere, what do you
mean? Did you include women with recurrence of BC?
Discussion
Should re-state and discuss the main findings are in the first paragraph before
launch into discussion of the literature .
5th paragraph, is the term psychic wellbeing what you mean?
Para 10 regiments should be regimens
What are the strengths and weaknesses of this study?
What are the main conclusions?
Discretionary revisions
The discussion could be improved by restructuring in the way I suggested.
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:Sexual function and chemotherapy in postmenopausal women with breast
cancer
Version: 2Date:28 June 2012
Reviewer: mary panjari
Reviewer's report:
minor essential revisions
The document is improved but there needs to be some more careful editing of
the english expression in places before this can be published.
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 function and chemotherapy in postmenopausal women with breast
cancer
Version: 2Date:5 July 2012
Reviewer: Jennifer Jabson
Reviewer's report:
MS ID : 1769501271590961
Title : Sexual function and chemotherapy in postmenopausal women with breast
cancer
Reviewer: Jennifer Jabson
This paper is a revised version of “Sexual function and chemotherapy in
postmenopausal women with breast cancer”, and it reports the findings
generated by a study of sexual function among breast cancer patient’s as
compared to the sexual function reported by no-cancer controls. The study’s
findings indicate that sexual function declines among breast cancer patients at
two points, after diagnosis of breast cancer and after administration of systemic
chemotherapy. This finding could be valuable for identifying the best possible
points at which to provide cancer patients with resources that address concerns
regarding sexual function during breast cancer treatment.
Thank you to the author’s for their responsive revisions.
Major Compulsory Concerns
The major concerns identified in this paper are detailed below. Addressing these
issues could improve the paper.
Introduction
1. Page 3, Paragraph 3: The purpose and message of this paragraph is not clear.
Discussion of measurement tools should be reserved for the methods section.
Discussion
2. Page 9, Paragraph 1: The fourth sentence, “This paper shows that ….”
Suggests a causal relationship. However, the findings presented in this paper are
correlational and a causal relationship cannot be determined from the methods
and analyses used in this study. Please revise.
3. Page 9, Paragraph 4: The first sentence, “…and the prior diagnosis variable…”
is unclear. In the methods section authors stated that individuals with prior
malignancies were excluded. Please clarify.
Minor Essential Concerns
The minor concerns identified in this paper are detailed below.
Introduction
1. Page 3, Paragraph 2: Authors should provide a citation that links hot flashes,
vaginal dryness, and dyspareunia to decline in sexual activity
2. Page 3, Paragraph 2: The last portion of the first sentence, “….including in
patients treated for breast cancer.” Is unclear. Reword for clarity.
3. Page 3, Paragraph 2: Citation needed for second sentence.
4. Page 3, paragraph 2: Fourth (last) sentence is unclear. Please clarify.
5. Page 4, Paragraph 2: The last sentence is grammatically incorrect. Please
correct.
Discussion
6. Page 9, Paragraph 1: The fourth sentence, “….produces a significant loss to
determine reduced…” is unclear. Please rewrite for clarity.
7. Page 9, Paragraph 3: The second sentence needs a citation and rewording for
clarity.
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:Physical health symptoms reported by trafficked women receiving
post-trafficking support in Moldova: prevalence, severity and associated factors.
Version: 2Date:19 January 2012
Reviewer: Jhumka Gupta
Reviewer's report:
This is an extremely well-written paper focusing on an under-researched area
that yielded findings worthy of publication. There are some areas that the authors
may be able to expand on to help contextualize findings. These points are
expanded upon below.
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
The research question is well-defined, however, it is not clearly defined what is
exactly meant by the term “physical health”. I would like to see more rationale as
to what constitutes “physical health”, as well as acknowledgment of other key
physical health symptoms that may be of concern, but not assessed in the
current study. For instance, have other trafficking studies or studies with women
experiencing abuse revealed physical health concerns not assessed in the
current study?
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
Yes
3. Are the data sound?
Yes
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
Yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
In the discussion, the authors state that many of the physical health symptoms
(e.g. headache, pain) could be explained by poor mental health. It is important for
the authors to also state that headache and pain may not necessarily be solely
attributable to poor mental health. Rather, headache and other pain may be due
to their own set of pathologies, and chronic pain can also contribute to poor
mental health. This may be particularly true in instances of labor trafficking, or
where physical violence was present.
Also, given some of the symptoms documented (such as pain, headache), I’d like
the authors to explicitly recommend what type of specific medical care may be
necessary. For instance, physical therapy might be particularly useful.
Also, given the emphasis on breathing problems and back pain, it would be
useful to describe how the trafficking environment may have contributed to these
symptoms (e.g. poor ventilation, pollutants in crowded conditions such as
brothels or sweatshops). I fully appreciate that the authors might not have
specifics, but a discussion on this may help contextualize the findngs.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Yes
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
Yes
9. Is the writing acceptable?
Yes
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:Physical health symptoms reported by trafficked women receiving
post-trafficking support in Moldova: prevalence, severity and associated factors.
Version: 2Date:3 April 2012
Reviewer: Bebe Loff
Reviewer's report:
These basic questions must be addressed before the paper is published.
Were all the women who sought assistance actually trafficking victims, rather
than informal workers in the sex work industry? How was this determined?
What had the women done prior to being trafficked?
How had they been trafficked?
Where had they been?
What was the nature of their experience?
How did they manage to return?
The experience of being trafficked is not uniform. What groups these women
together is they have sought assistance from IOM for whatever reason. How did
the women come to know about and access the IOM service? Of the women who
sought IOM services, how many were “rescued” and how many simply returned
to Moldova? How many of the trafficked women had experienced violence, abuse
or neglect as a consequence of being trafficked?
How many of those interviewed were children when originally trafficked?
Presumably those interviewed who were around 18 years old had been children.
Was their experience distinct in any way?
32.5% of the women had apparently been in a trafficked situation for less than 6
months, and 74.5% for less than a year. The limited time period raises questions
about the nature of their experience – that is were they trafficked and managed
somehow to get away/pay off their debt to whomever was owed this debt/were
they rescued by rescue agencies or the police/were they involved in prosecutions
against those who were involved in their experience?
Given the ease with which women who work in the sex industry are confused
with women who have been trafficked, a study of this nature must make some
effort to ensure that those assumed to have been trafficked, have indeed been
trafficked.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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 interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Physical health symptoms reported by trafficked women receiving
post-trafficking support in Moldova: prevalence, severity and associated factors.
Version: 3Date:4 June 2012
Reviewer: Jhumka Gupta
Reviewer's report:
The authors have done an excellent job in revising the manuscript per reviewer
comments. The one remaining issue is the first paragraph in the discussion
where the authors write "We note, however, that these symptoms may be due to
other pathologies and that chronic
pain can itself contribute to poor mental health.'. I recommend the authors write:
We note, however, that these symptoms may be due to other pathologies and
that chronic
pain [arising from such untreated or unrecognized pathologies] can itself
contribute to poor mental health.
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:Effect of genetic susceptibility and height, body mass index, and hormone
replacement therapy on the risk of breast cancer: a case control study
Version: 1Date:28 January 2012
Reviewer: Steven Narod
Reviewer's report:
The authors look for gene environmental interactions for breast cancer
large well characterised breast cancer sample
high degree of technical proficiency
main effects of 'environmental' factors minimal
snps chosen post hoc as a result of prior studies
many comparisons
none of clinical signficance
none of biological significance
not a promising area of research. need new and better ideas.
Level of interest: An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a
scientific/medical journal
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:Effect of genetic susceptibility and height, body mass index, and hormone
replacement therapy on the risk of breast cancer: a case control study
Version: 1Date:10 February 2012
Reviewer: wanghong xu
Reviewer's report:
Generally, this is a well-written paper on potential interactions of body height,
BMI and HRT with genetic polymorphisms in the risk of breast cancer.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. This paper was based on one cohort study, one screening project and one
case-control study. Therefore, the intervals between phenotype data collection
and diagnosis of breast cancer would be much different from each other. The
authors should mention the limitation in the Discussion section;
2. The authors should present the main effect of phenotypes on breast cancer
risk in three studies, respectively, in table 1, at least should describe the results
in the text;
3. In ICELAND study, the controls were collected from women who participated
in the population-based cervical or breast cancer screening program and from
older women in retirement homes. This means that the control group was not a
sample of the population from which the breast cancer cases generated.
Therefore, there existed severe selection bias in this study.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. This study focused on G-E interaction, not the main effect of gene or
environmental factros, and it was based on three studies, not just a case-control
study. So it would be better to change the title as "Interactive effect of genetic
susceptibility with height, body mass index, and hormone replacement therapy
on the risk of breast cancer";
2. not all height and BMI were based on body measurement, therefore, the
sentence of "... phenotypic variables were derived from measurements (height,
BMI) or questionnaires (HRT)" in the Abstract is not the truth;
Discretionary Revisions
1. Line 6 of page 5: "... with invasive breast cancer diagnosed between 1957 and
2007. " , Is "1957" a typo?
2. Why the authors used a chi-square p-value cutpoint of 0.001 when they tested
the consistency with HWE for genotype data from control samples?
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:Interactive effect of genetic susceptibility with height, body mass index, and
hormone replacement therapy on the risk of breast cancer
Version: 2Date:19 May 2012
Reviewer: wanghong xu
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed all of my previous concerns on this study.
Discretionary Revisions:
It would better if the authors can describe the biological significance of their
findings in etiology of breast cancer.
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