JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report 
 Prevalence of Chlamydia Trachomatis infection among women in a Middle Eastern Title: 
Community 
 1  29 February 2004 Version: Date: 
 Asem Shehabi Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The manuscript is well organised and performed 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached)No need 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 1-Table 4, major gynaecological complaints should be mentioned for 19 positive Chlamydia patients 2- Add the following reference: Prevalence of genital chlamydial infection in 
symptomatic and asymptomatic Jordanian patients 
Ziad M. Awwad, (1) Arwa A. Al-Amarat (2) and Asem A. Shehabi (2),Int J Infect Dis 2003; 7: 206–209 3- Delete the following statement from the discussion part " to our knowledge, this the first study 
study of its kind from Middel East " 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Reference no.10 is not directly related to topic or discussion 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Reference no.10 is not directly related to topic or discussion 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None above
Reviewer's report 
 Prevalence of Chlamydia Trachomatis infection among women in a Middle Eastern Title: 
Community 
 1  1 March 2004 Version: Date: 
 Veerakathy Harindra Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
Screening in this study was carried out among married women. This represent a low risk group for 
Chlamydia. The comparison made by the authors to studies in the west includes an unselected 
population with sexually actve women. Therefore based on their selected screening population one 
cannot recommend that screening is not warranted. 
Although the authors recognise the difficulty in screening unmarried women, they may represent the 
high risk group for Chlamydia & screening should have been ideally carried out in them. 
One in 4 women in the study reported living in a polygamous marriage but the authors did not look at 
the prevalnce of Chlamydia between this group & women in monogamous relationship. This could 
have been important because women in polygamous relationship are at a higher risk for Chlamydia. The clearview test used to detect Chlamydia has low sensitivity. This is not the ideal test to screen 
for Chlamydia in a low prevalent area. Therefore based on the findings you cannot draw any 
conclusion regarding oppertunistic screening. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
The authors will have to review the tables. The figures do not add up. 
A table to show the prevalence of Chlamydia among the varoius nationality & level of education 
would be valuable 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Reviewer's report 
 Prevalence of Chlamydia Trachomatis infection among women in a Middle Eastern Title: 
Community 
 3  27 March 2004 Version: Date: 
 veronique verhoeven Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I'm quite happy with this revision; all comments have been adequately adressed. I think in this form it 
adds valuable information to the chlamydia discussion. I have no further suggestions for changes. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
none
Reviewer's report 
 Prevalence of Chlamydia Trachomatis infection among women in a Middle Eastern Title: 
Community 
 3  19 April 2004 Version: Date: 
 Veerakathy Harindra Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
The authous have responded to my initial comments 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
none
Reviewer's report 
 Cognitive Function in Relation with Bone Mass and Nutrition: Cross-sectional Association in Title: 
Postmenopausal Women 
 2  7 May 2004 Version: Date: 
 Prema Rapuri Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This paper studies the association between mild degree of cognitive impairment, BMD and diet. The 
authors report that mild degree of cognitive impairment can be a marker for lower BMD and a diet 
lower in carbohydrate and potassium intake and older women with mild cognitive impairment would 
benefit from BMD measurement and nutritional assesment. This is a well written manuscript and the 
methodology used is quite appropriate. However, as the authors point out the cognitive impairment 
in this study population is very mild and could have effected the outcome of the study. The following queries need to be addressed by the authous 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
1. In all the tables the data should be reported as mean±SD instead in the parentheses. 
2. In results section, the authors mention that Table 1 gives the MMSE scores (Page 10, first paragraph, line 5). However the Table does not contain this data. 3. In Table 2, the authors should indicate the statistical significance between the groups. 
4. The introduction is quite lengthy. It can be cut down to 1 and half page. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
none
Reviewer's report 
 Acute pancreatitis following medical abortion: Case report Title: 
 1  6 January 2004 Version: Date: 
 Hobart Harris Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
A well-written and concise report of an interesting case of acute pancreatitis in a woman following a 
medical abortion. 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
1) Figure 1 could be eliminated as it does not add much in the way of essential information regarding 
the incident. While the timing of medications is relevant, it remains circumstantial evidence and 
could be easily summarized in the text of the manuscript. 
2) Please note that CT scans are a poor way of imaging gallstones, thus the comment in the Case 
Presentation section noting that stones were not seen on CT is not strong evidence against cholelithiasis as an etiology for the pancreatitis. 3) Do you have lipases levels fort this patient? 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 1) The patient's acute pancreatitis needs to be evaluated according to one of the several available 
severity scoring systems, be it Ransons, APACHE II, Glasgow or even the CT scoring (Balthazar) 
system. This is critical, and as much as Table 1 fails to include sufficient datat to do this, it's overall 
contribution to the manuscript is significantly diminished. The reader should be enabled to determine 
just how sick this woman was, and her anticipated prognosis. Just how bad an attack of pancreatitis 
was this? 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None.
Reviewer's report 
 Acute pancreatitis following medical abortion: Case report Title: 
 1  4 February 2004 Version: Date: 
 Paul Georg Georg Lankisch Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
This is an interesting case report which adds to our knowledge to drug-induced pancreatitis. It should 
be accepted after one minor change which is that in the case presentation the upper limit of normal 
of plasma amylase levels in the author's hospital should be given. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Reviewer's report 
 Acute pancreatitis following medical abortion: Case report Title: 
 2  25 March 2004 Version: Date: 
 Hobart Harris Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have substantially improved the manuscript as it is now a more concise and detailed 
report of a very interesting case of necrotizing pancreatitis following a medical abortion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None.
Reviewer's report 
 THE LUNA TRIAL protocol A randomised controlled trial to assess the efficacy of Title: 
Laparoscopic Uterosacral Nerve Ablation (LUNA) in the treatment of chronic pelvic pain 
 3  22 August 2003 Version: Date: 
 Chris Kettle Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Title and abstract 
This well written paper outlines a protocol for a randomised trial designed to assess the efficacy of 
laparascopic uterosacral nerve ablation (LUNA)in the treatmant of chronic pelvic pain. 
Significance of the topic 
This research study sets out to evaluate the acceptability and effectiveness of laparoscopic 
uterosacral nerve ablation (LUNA) in women who are experiencing chronic pelvic pain. The benefits 
and risks of this procedure have not, as yet, been assessed within a robust clinical trial. 
Background 
The background is very clear and well structured providing details of previous work carried out in this 
specific area. It also gives detail of a systematic review of the efficacy of LUNA and clearly defines 
the need for further rigorous research to assess the clinical effectiveness of this procedure. 
Ethical considerations 
The authors have given full consideration to the ethical aspects of this trial including concerns 
regarding the need for a 'sham' incision to keep the participants blinded to the treatment allocated. 
Indeed, as highlighted by the authors, this is necessary to prevent participant bias affecting the 
results of the study. 
Details of the proposal 
The study is well designed and appropriate to test the hypothesis set out in the proposal. A pilot 
study has already been undertaken to assess the feasibility of the trial. 
The aims and objectives of the study are clear and achievable. 
Details of the research methods,interventions and randomisation process are clearly described. 
Consideration has been given by the trialists to the importance of ‘blinding’ the surgical interventions 
in order to prevent bias when asessing the efficacy of the allocated treatment. 
Validated tools will be used to measure the pre-specified primary and secondary outcomes up to 
twelve months following the allocated treatment. 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Minor queries 
1. Are there any risks involved in the LUNA? 
2. How will the trialists ensure that the surgical procedure is carried out in a ‘standardised’ way? 
3. It would be useful to have a copy of the patient's questionnaires published with the protocol. 
Minor Compulsory Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which 
the author can be trusted to correct) 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
 Accept without revision Advice on publication: 
 A paper whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Reviewer's report 
 Prevalence of Urinary Incontinence in Andorra: Impact on Womens Health. Title: 
Authors: 
Avellanet Merce ( saas.rhb@andorra.ad )
Dr Fiter Meritxell ( mfv@andorra.ad )
Cirera Eva ( cirviz@teleline.es )
Coll Margarida ( alaycoll@mypic.ad )
 4  10 Mar 2003 Version: Date: 
 Mary Palmer Reviewer: 
 A paper whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have Advice on publication: 
responded to the compulsory revisions 
Complusory revisions: 
1. delete the use of unwitting incontinence. It is confusing to readers and not a known term used by 
ICS. 2. SUI is the abbreviation for stress urinary incontinence. Using it for sproadic incontinence will only confuse readers. 
3. Table 1 -- there appears to be rounding errors - the total percent comes to 101%. 
4. Table 2 - rounding errors comes to 99.9% Add a note to the table that there are no statisticaly significant differences. 
Discretionary revisions 
1. did you mean deliveries or pregnancies on p. 4 or would it be more accurate to say, "reproductive and physiological differences 
2. on p. 8 how was it determined that this group is less inclined to seek medical advice but more 
likely to follow treatment? 
Competing interests: 
None declared.
Reviewer's report 
 Prevalence of Urinary Incontinence in Andorra: Impact on Womens Health. Title: 
Authors: 
Avellanet Merce ( saas.rhb@andorra.ad )
Dr Fiter Meritxell ( mfv@andorra.ad )
Cirera Eva ( cirviz@teleline.es )
Coll Margarida ( alaycoll@mypic.ad )
 4  23 Jun 2003 Version: Date: 
 Victor Kiri Reviewer: 
 A paper whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Accept after discretionary revisions Advice on publication: 
Last para under "Questionnaire", I'll like the authors to use the RECOMMENDED backward stepwise 
approach (in this type of analysis) instead of the forward stepwise as used. 
Competing interests: 
None declared.
Reviewer's report 
 Delayed presentaion in breast cancer: a study in Iranian women Title: 
Authors: 
Dr Ali Montazeri ( ali@jdcord.jd.ac.ir )
Dr Mandana Ebrahimi ( ebrahimiman@yahoo.com )
Neda Mehrdad ( neda_mehrdad@yahoo.com )
Dr Mariam Ansari ( ali@jdcord.jd.ac.ir )
Akram Sajadian ( asadjadian@yahoo.com )
 1  13 May 2003 Version: Date: 
 Volker Arndt Reviewer: 
 A paper of considerable general medical or scientific interest Level of interest: 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have Advice on publication: 
responded to the compulsory revisions 
This is a clearly written and concise paper addressing the important issue of patient delay in breast 
cancer. So far, this topic has been studied almost exclusively in Western (and in some Asian 
countries). Since health behaviour (including help seeking) may be influenced by cultural and social 
background results from other countries are necessary. 
I have only minor suggestions: 
a) discretionary revisions 
(1) Abstract: The last sentence in the results section (The significant association also was ...") 
should read Significant associations also were ..." 
b) compulsory revisions 
(2) Methods Section: The authors state that patients were excluded if their data concerning delay 
were unreliable. Was it not possible to reassess/clear up unreliable data already during the 
interview? How were unreliable data defined ? 
(3) Old age has been identified as a predictor for patient delay among breast cancer patients in many 
studies. Table 2 indicates that there was also a tendency for older women to delay in this study 
(Ptrend = 0.06) which might be noteworthy to describe and where a statistical significance might be 
attenuated by the small number of cases in the reference category. A different categorization of age 
might yield a clearer picture. 
(4) Table 3: Footnote says that analysis was carried out based on a 2 by 2 table. I assume that 
stages I & II and stages III & IV have been combined. The authors should their re-categorization 
more explicitly. 
(5) Discussion 2nd paragraph: There is some confusion regarding marital status as a predictor of 
delay: The second sentence says: "Earlier studies ...showed while marital status was (a?) significant 
predictor of delay." Two sentences later it is said that Only few studies indicated that there is an 
association between delay and marital status". So what is the evidence so far ? 
(6) Discussion 7th paragraph ("Like other studies..."): The authors do not provide information 
regarding the distribution of tumor differentation in the study population and whether the association between delay and tumor stage also varies with respect to tumor differentation as reported in the 
cited study. Therefore, the conclusion that a substantial proportion of poorly differentiated" breast 
cancer cases could be avoided... is not supported by the herein presented results. 
(7) Reference list: Reference 5 was published in 2001 (not 20001) 
Competing interests: 
None declared.
Reviewer's report 
 Delayed presentaion in breast cancer: a study in Iranian women Title: 
Authors: 
Dr Ali Montazeri ( ali@jdcord.jd.ac.ir )
Dr Mandana Ebrahimi ( ebrahimiman@yahoo.com )
Neda Mehrdad ( neda_mehrdad@yahoo.com )
Dr Mariam Ansari ( ali@jdcord.jd.ac.ir )
Akram Sajadian ( asadjadian@yahoo.com )
 1  14 May 2003 Version: Date: 
 montella maurizio Reviewer: 
 A paper whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have Advice on publication: 
responded to the compulsory revisions 
undefinedMontazeri et al. reported the results on breast cancer delay in Iranian women. The study is 
interesting because is one of the few studies performed on Mussulman women although the short 
number of cases. 
Discretionary revisions: 
1. The study evaluates only the Patient delay, defined as time intervals of more than 12 weeks from 
first symptom to first medical consultation (without specify the kind of doctor: surgeon, radiologist general practitioner, etc.), no data are reported for Medical delay (from medical consultation to 
hospital admission) and Overall delay (from first symptom to surgical treatment). 
2. It would be useful to recruit a bigger number of patients increasing the study-period to evaluate 
also a longer time-interval (e.g. until 6 months). 
Compulsory revisions: 
1. In table 2 (as legend ) the authors should provide to add the adjusted terms used in the analysis 
(e.g. age, marital status, etc) 
2. In table 3 the authors should perform a logistic regression analysis calculating ORs for the stage 
of disease (taking the I stage as reference category), the tumor size (categorizing into two 
categories: [less than or equal to]2 cm; >2 cm) and for the nodal involvement. 
3. The authors should explain in the Discussion section the significant risk for widowed/divorced 
women. 
4. The second paragraph at pag.8 should be clarified or avoided. 
Competing interests: 
None declared.
Reviewer's report 
 Delayed presentaion in breast cancer: a study in Iranian women Title: 
Authors: 
Dr Ali Montazeri ( ali@jdcord.jd.ac.ir )
Dr Mandana Ebrahimi ( ebrahimiman@yahoo.com )
Neda Mehrdad ( neda_mehrdad@yahoo.com )
Mariam Ansari ( ansari@yahoo.com )
Akram Sajadian ( asadjadian@yahoo.com )
 4  20 Jun 2003 Version: Date: 
 Anthony Staines Reviewer: 
 A paper whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Accept without revision Advice on publication: 
This paper has been appropriately revised in response to the referee's comments. It is now clearer 
and easier to follow. I found it interesting to read and would suggest that no further revisions are 
necessary. 
Competing interests: 
None declared.
Reviewer's report 
 Delayed presentaion in breast cancer: a study in Iranian women Title: 
Authors: 
Dr Ali Montazeri ( ali@jdcord.jd.ac.ir )
Dr Mandana Ebrahimi ( ebrahimiman@yahoo.com )
Neda Mehrdad ( neda_mehrdad@yahoo.com )
Mariam Ansari ( ansari@yahoo.com )
Akram Sajadian ( asadjadian@yahoo.com )
 4  23 Jun 2003 Version: Date: 
 Volker Arndt Reviewer: 
 A paper of considerable general medical or scientific interest Level of interest: 
 Accept without revision Advice on publication: 
My comments have been considered sufficiently. 
Competing interests: 
None declared.
The page cannot be displayed
There is a problem with the page you are trying to reach and it 
cannot be displayed. 
Please try the following: 
Click the Refresh  button, or try again later; it does not 
normally take a long time for an application to restart. 
Open the home page, and then look for links to the 
information you want. 
HTTP Error 500-12 Application Restarting 
Internet Information Services
Technical Information (for support personnel) 
Background: 
The request cannot be processed while the Web site is 
restarting. 
More information: 
Microsoft Support