JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Understanding cervical cancer: an exploration of lay perceptions, beliefs
and knowledge about cervical cancer among the Acholi in post-conflict northern
Uganda Amos Deogratius Mwaka1, Elialilia Sarikiaeli Okello2, Juliet Kiguli3,
Elizeus Rutebemberwa4 Amos Deogratius MWAKA (mwakaad@yahoo.com)
Elialilia Sarikiaeli OKELLO (Elialilia@yahoo.co.uk) Juliet KIGULI
(jkiguli2002@yahoo.com) Elizeus RUTEBEMBERWA (ellie@musph.ac.ug)
Corresponding author: Amos Deogratius Mwaka. Department of Medicine,
School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, P.O Box
7072, Kampala, Uganda. Email: mwakaad@yahoo.com 1. Department of
Medicine, School of Medicine, College of Health sciences, Makerere University,
Uganda and Visiting Research Scholar, Department of Health Services
Research, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, UK. 2. Department
of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Makerere
University, Uganda. 3. Department of Community Heal
Version:4Date:7 June 2014
Reviewer: sabrina bakeera-kitaka
Reviewer's report:
This is a novel study and very interesting to read.It explores the knowledge of
rural Ugandan women on the cause of cervical cancer.This study is very
important in assessing community awareness and potentially support for the
introduction of the HPV vaccine which Uganda as a country has applied for to
GAVI and then will introduce as a Universal vaccine to girls aged between 9-13
years.The authors write in their discussion that further studies are needed to
elucidate the carcinogenicity of oral contraceptives.This is potentially a further
deterrent to utilization and uptake of contraceptives.The type of study done is
purely qualitative and doesn't justify this strong position.Moreover it is well known
scientifically that the cause of cervical cancer is HPV,but the authors do not
allude to this at all,and neither do they make any contingency plans to educate
the population studied to nullify their myths.Screening for cervical cancer using
PAP SMEARS is another method of preventing further spread of cervical
cancer.The exploration in this study does not address knowledge on screening.It
would be important to include the level and access to gynecological services in
this region.
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:
No conflict of interest declared
Reviewer's report
Title:Xanthogranulomatous inflammation of the perimetrium with infiltration into
the uterine myometrium in a postmenopausal woman: a case report
Version:2Date:30 June 2014
Reviewer: Per-Göran Larsson
Reviewer's report:
Review of the case repport “Xanthogranulomatous inflammation of the
perimetrium with infiltration into the uterine myometrium in a postmenopausal
woman: a case report” by dr Tomoko Inoue and co-workers.
This is a case report of a women with a severe infection in the myometrium
without any endometrits.
The article is well written and it is easy to follow the case. Even though the
Xanthogranulomatous inflammation is a rare disease it is still important to keep in
mind. When a women comes with postmenopausal bleeding endometrial biopsy
is done to roll out malignancy. In this case one can speculate if she had an
infection from the beginning and that the biopsy cased the infection to spread into
the myometrium.
The article also shows that the pre-operative diagnosis can be difficult. Both CT
and MRI was needed before surgery. In this case the surgeons were well
prepared for the operation
As the article is well written I cannot see any changes that will improve the article
so I suggest that it is published without any more review.
Reviewer's report
Title:Effect of miscarriage history on maternal-infant bonding during the first year
postpartum in the First Baby Study: A longitudinal cohort study
Version:4Date:21 June 2014
Reviewer: Denise Cote-Arsenault
Reviewer's report:
The authors have responded to each suggestion which has improved this
manuscript. The change to "miscarriage" from "perinatal loss" improves clarity a
good deal. A few minor essential revisions remain as follows:
1) p. 4 4th line under Background, this sentence would be more clear with
commas on either side of "successfully achieved."
2) P. 9 1st paragraph. Good explanation for how items were chosen for the
S-PBQ but please add a brief desciption of the PBQ and rationale for not using
the full questionnaire.
3) Good additional paragraph on P. 9 for statistical power. Please add a
citation/reference for this.
4) Please add the proper accent marks to my name in the text and the
references; i.e. Côté-Arsenault
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:Effect of miscarriage history on maternal-infant bonding during the first year
postpartum in the First Baby Study: A longitudinal cohort study
Version:4Date:1 July 2014
Reviewer: Sylvia Metcalfe
Reviewer's report:
I was happy with all the changes made by the authors and I do not reuire any
further revisions. My recommendation is to accept as is.
Reviewer's report
Title:Induced abortion trends from 1996 to 2011 in Estonia: special emphasis on
repeat abortion
Version:1Date:2 May 2014
Reviewer: Mika Gissler
Reviewer's report:
Made Laanpere et al: Induced abortion trends from 1996 to 2011 in Estonia:
special emphasis on repeat abortion'
This descriptive article studies overall and age-specific trends in induced abortion
in Estonia between 1996 and 2011, even by background factors. The material is
based on the Estonian Abortion Registry. The main result is the significant
decline in induced abortion rate by 57%. Even repeated induced abortion
decreased, even though more moderately. Also the validity of the data has been
thoroughly discussed.
The article is well written and useful for those interested in reproductive health.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. The effect of postponed childbearing and its effect to induced abortion patterns
should be included. Previously, the Estonians had their children early and
terminated the pregnancies after having the wanted number of children. In this
material, 90% of women with repeated abortions were parous women. In the
traditional Western European pattern, unwanted pregnancies are terminated
before the childbearing is started. I wonder if this can already be seen in the
Estonian data.
2. Row129: e) the age-specific abortion rates, not rate.
3. Rows 198-199: I had problems to understand the first sentence.
4. Row 222: …private sector and may not have been included instead of so may
not have been included.
5. Row 312: there are not data, instead of there is no data.
6. Row 338: 6.5% instead of 6.5 %.
7. Figure 3: The figure would be easier to read, if given from 0% to 100% in y
axis and sequence of abortions would add to 100%. The four groups in x axis
would be 1996-2003 Estonians and Non-Estonians and 2004-2011 Estonians
and Non-Estonians.
8. Give percentages systematically with one decimal, e.g. rows 173-174.
9. Inclusion of thousand separators would make the reading easier.
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.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have worked in a previous project on reproductive health in Finland, Estonia
and St Peterburg with Drs Made Laanpere, Kai Part and Helle Karro
(2006-2009). I have common articles with Drs Kai Part and Helle Karro
(2010-2013), and I have also lectured at University of Tartu, Estonia (2013).
Reviewer's report
Title:Induced abortion trends from 1996 to 2011 in Estonia: special emphasis on
repeat abortion
Version:1Date:18 May 2014
Reviewer: Joanna Mishtal
Reviewer's report:
Please see the uploaded document
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:
none
Reviewer's report
Title:Awareness and correlates of the role of physical activity in breast cancer
prevention among Japanese women: a cross-sectional study
Version:1Date:15 April 2014
Reviewer: Ali Montazeri
Reviewer's report:
In general the paper reads well and merits publication. However, before its
publication there is need for a careful proof reading.
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, 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:Predictors of women's autonomy regarding their own and children's health
care utilization in Bale Zone: A community based study
Version: 2Date:3 October 2013
Reviewer: Catherine Chojenta
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The Methods section would benefit from more detail, in particular relating to
the qualitative component of the project. What kinds of questions were asked of
participants? Further, more detail on the quantitative measures are required such
as health care service and attitudes.
2. The Results section needs to include more detail on the qualitative interviews.
What where the major thematic findings of the project?
Minor Essential Revisions
Introduction
1. 1st Paragraph, 2nd sentence needs rewording for clarity.
2. 1st paragraph, what is the 'agreed definition' of autonomy before describing
alternative definitions
3. 2nd paragraph, 4th line, "greater"
4. 2nd paragraph, last sentence. More detail on the studies that you have
referred to is required
5. 3rd paragraph. Reword 1st sentence. Brackets around the percentages are
not required. You should also give more information on women's autonomy in
relation to making purchases. What implications does this have for autonomy in
decision making in other facets of their lives? Also the first sentence does not
relate to the rest of the paragraph.
6. 5th Paragraph. What is MDG-3? Some explanation for those readers not
familiar with Ethiopian government policies is required.
7. 5th Paragraph. Last sentence. Does this refer to Ethiopia?
Methods
8. You have stated that 44.7% of the population are urban dwellers, however you
have sampled only 2 urban and 10 rural kebeles - some explanation of the
reason behind this oversampling of rural women is required, and should be
considered in the analysis.
9. 3rd Paragraph, 1st sentence. Does "married women" indicate they are
childless?
10. The inclusion of men in the sample for "scientific consideration" seems
unusual when the data from men is used heavily in the results and discussion. I
would think that they are worthy of defining as 'participants' based on the heavy
use of their data.
Discussion
1. 1st Paragraph. The first sentence needs rewording for clarity.
2. 2st Paragraph, 8th line. "gender role"
Conclusion
1. I think you should focus your conclusions on the multivariate findings, not the
univariate results.
2. The conclusion would benefit from a discussion of how these findings will
translate to interventions? Do you have some insights that you could provide as
to the ability to modify a woman's autonomy? Many of the variables you have
investigated are non-modifiable, however some are highly modifiable such as
health service knowledge.
Figure
1. Figure was not available for download, so I was unable to comment.
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, 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:Predictors of women's autonomy regarding their own and children's health
care utilization in Bale Zone: A community based study
Version:2Date:16 February 2014
Reviewer: Yemane Berhane
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions:
Introduction:
1) Autonomy is not defined consistently as it relates to the study objectives. Give
a single definition that is going to be used in the introduction, methods, and
results sections of this paper.
2) No focus – which aspect of autonomy is this paper trying to address:
economic, sexuality, purchases, service utilization…
Objective:
3) Lacks clarity; is the focus of the study on the mother or her children? This is a
very critical starting point for the paper but confusing as presented.
Methods:
4) The section generally lacks important details on sample size calculation, data
collection procedures, and Measurement. No description on how the operational
definitions used in measurement. No description of the choice of the variables for
the multivariable model.
5) The qualitative methods was not described well and its relevance not justified.
I strongly recommend to take out the qualitative component
Results
6) Numbers and percents not presented accurately
7) Tables and figures not easy to understand mainly because no detail
description was given in the methods sections about them. Why is only
significant variables shown in table 3.
Discussion
8) Very superficial. Results were mostly compared to a context different from that
of Sub-Saharan Africa. Authors need to be systematic in discussing results.
9) Quotations and new results need to be removed. The discussion section
should be strictly used for discussing the main findings of the study.
10) Conclusions and recommendations are not based on the study findings;
which are not actually clear at this point.
References
11) Lacks regional references and does not appear systematic.
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:Factors associated with women's autonomy regarding maternal and child
health care utilization in Bale Zone: A community based cross-sectional study
Version:4Date:30 April 2014
Reviewer: Abebaw Gebeyehu
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript looks better
Many of my concerns are addressed. However, the responses for the first
comment I raised as major and as minor essential were not adequate.
The study is not specific to child health care or maternal health care. As
commented before, the effect of women's autonomy is not similar for child health
care compared to maternal health care, even for different types of services in
both groups. The logic of defining the outcome variable (merging maternal and
child health services) is still unsound. I think this is the major problem of this
study.
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:Factors associated with women's autonomy regarding maternal and child
health care utilization in Bale Zone: A community based cross-sectional study
Version:4Date:2 May 2014
Reviewer: Catherine Chojenta
Reviewer's report:
MAJOR COMPULSORY REVISIONS
1. Methods - while you have added a lot of detail about the sample size, the
recruitment of participants is still not clear. How was the "list of study participants"
(line 126) created?
2. Results - please be clear that the first section of the results is the unadjusted
Odds Ratios. A number of variables that were significant in the univariate
analysis were not significant in the multivariate analysis and the results section
could potentially be misleading to the reader. Also, the phrase "on the other
hand" is used numerous times in the Results section and is not used correctly.
Please reword.
3. You have used many different terms for participants throughout the whole
document such as "women", "mothers", "participants". Please be consistent.
4. How have you treated the variable 'mother's attitude towards MCH'? There is
not enough detail in the methods section, and there are no categories listed in
Table 2. Was it continuous or categorical?
5. Conclusions - the strongest predictor of autonomy was knowledge of MCH.
This should be discussed in more detail, and your implications for future
interventions should incorporate some recommendations around increasing
knowledge of MCH.
MINOR ESSENTIAL REVISIONS
6. Line 141 - "constructs of women's autonomy"
7. Line 141 - "for each construct"
8. Line 143-146 - It is not clear how the composite measure was calculated
9. Line 158 - assume you mean "different research"
10. Line 163 - "stated"
11. Line 164 - "earns"
12. Line 174-175 - be sure that all acronyms are spelt out the first time they are
used
13. Line 184 - Operational definitions. There is a lot of double-up of information in
this section and in the Measurements section. Could you combine these
sections, or reduce the redundant information?
14. Line 221 - "tests were two sided"
15. Line 226 - "Respondents were informed about the potential risks"
16. Figure 1 - problems with the category labels displaying correctly
17. Line 302 - be clear about the direction of the significant relationship
11.
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.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Factors associated with women's autonomy regarding maternal and child
health care utilization in Bale Zone: A community based cross-sectional study
Version:4Date:8 May 2014
Reviewer: Yemane Berhane
Reviewer's report:
Previous comments adequately addressed.
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 declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Factors associated with women's autonomy regarding maternal and child
health care utilization in Bale Zone: A community based cross-sectional study
Version:5Date:2 June 2014
Reviewer: Catherine Chojenta
Reviewer's report:
My previous concerns have been adequately 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:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Perceived stress and emotional social support among women who are
denied or receive abortions in the United States: a prospective cohort study
Version:3Date:17 April 2014
Reviewer: Angela Taft
Reviewer's report:
This is a ground-breaking study and the authors are to be congratulated on
tackling such an important topic in a thorough manner and with many facets to
the study. I believe the paper will be strengthened with some important inclusions
in the method sections and a few small changes.
Minor essential revisions
1. Methods. I have looked at two other Turnaway studies AJPH 2013 and BMC
WH but find no reference to sample size calculation and power to detect effect
differences for outcome variables of interest. I fully understand that recruitment
would be unpredictable (and your retention is excellent for such a sensitive topic.
Nevertheless I think the authors should comment if they have done any analyses
to calculate what power they have with the actual sample, especially as it is so
highly clustered.
2. Please comment on how you accounted for missingness and what level of
missingness you experienced in variables of those who have been retained.
3. Can you comment somewhere - methods or discussion why you did not
measure marital status?
4. Please comment, esp in discussion, how representative of women of similar
reproductive age (parity) etc your sample is?
Discretionary revisions
1. P3 Suggest moving your first paragraph on top of P4 to after first sentence of
your BG as you define 'percieved stress and detail the harmful outcomes
2. Par 4, P4. I suggest adding after middle sentence 'perceived stress amonmg
women (with unwanted pregnancies) who have abortions and who deliver
3. P5 Final sentence of the first para. My understanding of the Olds etc trial is
that these were 'vulnerable' mothers and this should be qualified.
4. Consider adding to the final paragraph before Methods, a benefit of observing
any change over time.
5. There are better systematic reviews of the relationship between abortion and
mental health - published in the Br J Psychiatr and Harvard Psych review.
Consider citing.
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:Barriers among Danish women and general practitioners to raising the
issue of intimate partner violence in general practice: a qualitative study
Version:4Date:21 February 2014
Reviewer: Bosiljka Djikanovic
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions
Authors significantly improved the manuscript and successfully addressed my
concerns. However, there are some minor suggestions that I advice authors to
take into consideration:
Introduction has been extended and it provided an enriched inside into Danish
healthcare system and justification of the study. Also, for some aspects it has
been overdone, particularly in the newly added last paragraph. It would be more
reader-friendly to end Introduction simply with a research questions, and to save
other details for the Method, while definitions of “routine inquiry” should not be
placed here, but rather somewhere up in the text.
Still, it this is pretty extensive manuscript (Discussion and Conclusion
particularly) which in my opinion could have been much more shorter, focused
and specific. However, if Editor and other reviewers are not holding the same
opinion, I would not insist in revision of the manuscript for its length.
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.