JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Comparing the Analgesic Effect of Heat Pach Containing Iron Chip and
Ibuprofen for Primary Dysmenorrhea: A randomized controlled trial
Version: 2Date:10 October 2011
Reviewer: Maria Luisa Gasparri
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
I would like to thank you for asking me to review the interesting manuscript”
Comparing the Analgesic Effect of Heat Pach Containing Iron Chip and Ibuprofen
for Primary Dysmenorrhea: A randomized controlled trial” written by Shahindokht
Navvabi Rigi al.
The paper analyzes the analgesic effect of iron chip containing heat wrap
comparing to ibuprofen for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. The Author
found that heat pach containing Iron chip has comparable analgesic effects to
ibuprofen and can possibly be used for primary dysmenorrhea.
The question posed by the authors well defined and the aims of this manuscript
respond to the gynecologic need in updating on the management of
dysmenorrea.
The manuscript addresses an issue of clinical importance and it deals with the
matter with great argumentation and the literature is clearly explained and
properly discussed, even if many studies in the literature are specifically
dedicated to this item, and only the present compare with particularly accuracy
these old but current therapeutic dispositives.
On the whole, results are comparable to those of the other studies, but there are
also some differences well exposed in the paper. For example they highlighted
the similar efficacy of two methods who generally were considered non equally
efficient.
We found that this apparently insignificant result could open a new scenario for
women who can’t be treated by FANS (e.g. allergy, haemorragic diatesis, gastric
ulcera.. ). For this reason we suggest to cite this consideration in discussion to
enrich the potential impact of the result of this trial.
We suggest to review all previous scientific publications in order to collocate this
comparison in a well described scenario. Furthermore we suggest to report
worldwide epidemiologic data, not only Iranian ones.
It could be interesting also elucidate in the discussion the recent dispositives
used in the management of dysmenorrhea and a profilatic oral ormonal therapy
with a detailed analysis of benefits and potential drawbacks.
Globally the manuscript is clearly laid out.
Arguments are supported by data, findings are novel and statistical analyses
have been conducted properly. Limitations and eventual bias were properly
analyzed.
Finally, we conclude that the manuscript, is appropriate for publications in this
Journal.
In my opinion, it could be accepted with major compulsory revisions.
Best regards
Maria Luisa Gasparri
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:Comparison of the analgesic effects of a heat patch containing an iron chip
with ibuprofen in primary dysmenorrhea: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 4Date:5 December 2011
Reviewer: Yutaka Osuga
Reviewer's report:
Unfortunately, the authors have not provided the convincing responses.
1. The precise explanation of the method of sampling has not been added to the
revised manuscript.
2. What is the rationale that the mean total pain rating, instead of that of each
time point, was compared? The authors should show the pain rating of each time
point and compare it.
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:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report
Title:Comparison of the analgesic effects of a heat patch containing an iron chip
with ibuprofen in primary dysmenorrhea: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 4Date:10 December 2011
Reviewer: Maria Luisa Gasparri
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author,
I appreciate the corrections made in this version. Before accepting the
manuscript I have to suggest to investigate, into selecting patients, a subclinical
(or not yet diagnosed) endometriosis, justifying a resistant pain. Furthermore, it is
also important to consider, in exclusion criteria, an history of endometriosis and
specify the reference reporting this rationale (Porpora MG, et al Fertil Steril. 2010
Feb;93(3):716-21), explaining that an history of endometriosis can justify pain
also in patients who were surgically treated, both with eventual Oral
estroprogestins after primary surgery and without adjuvant oral therapy post
surgery (Muzii L et al J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011 Mar-Apr;18(2):173-8).
After these corrections, the paper could be accepted.
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.
Declaration of competing interests:
i declare that i have no competing interest
Reviewer's report
Title:Comparison of the analgesic effects of a heat patch containing an iron chip
with ibuprofen in primary dysmenorrhea: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 5Date:24 April 2012
Reviewer: Yutaka Osuga
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Now, I can understand the time-course of each pain score. There comes new
problem that the current pain score appears to be significantly low in Ibuprofen
group than in heat pach group at 8 h. The authors should address the issue in
the discussion.
I guess that "present pain" in Table 2 corresponds to "current pain" in Table3(
this should be a figure).
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.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Comparison of the analgesic effects of a heat patch containing an iron chip
with ibuprofen in primary dysmenorrhea: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 5Date:14 June 2012
Reviewer: Maria Luisa Gasparri
Reviewer's report:
i didn't found in the paper the references that i have suggested to supply in my
previous revision.
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:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Comparison of the analgesic effects of a heat patch containing an iron chip
with ibuprofen in primary dysmenorrhea: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 6Date:10 July 2012
Reviewer: Yutaka Osuga
Reviewer's report:
The authors responded to my concern.
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:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Care seeking patterns for non-communicable diseases in rural northwest
Bangladesh
Version: 1Date:20 January 2012
Reviewer: Juanita Hatcher
Reviewer's report:
General comments
This paper attempts to address an interesting subject. The study is an off shoot
of a much larger intervention trial, and the data collection was not specifically
designed for this study, leaving it with several weaknesses, that are not
adequately described in the paper.
In general the writing is good, and the abstract reflects the results and
conclusions.
Major Revisions
1. The title does not indicate the study is among females of reproductive age, nor
that the NCDs studied are fatal
2. The study question should be re written to reflect the issues addressed in the
paper, namely that this research looks only at fatal NCDs, and the population is
women of reproductive age. Also only a limited number of sociocultural factors
were investigated
3. The age range for the women in the study should be clearly defined, as there
are three age ranges described (14-59 years stated in current paper on p 5,
14-45 years stated on p6 and 13-44 years stated in quoted paper (13))
4. The paper should reference which verbal autopsy form was used.
5. The paper should identify who responded to the verbal autopsy, and the
completeness of data collected for health seeking and other factors, since this
was in response to an open ended question.
6. The referencing is very sloppy and must be revised. For example ref 1 does
not have the URL, ref 2 is not complete, ref 3 has the wrong date, the statement
attached to refs 5 and 6 refers to India, but #5 is about Bangladesh nad # 6 is
about Pakistan. In the 2nd para in Background refs 5 and 6 both refer to
prevalence but is quoted as referring to mortality, ref 13 has missed one author
and has the wrong date. These errors are for those refs that I checked in more
detail. I am sure there are others.
7. Some of the limitations are described, but not the ones described above such
as the effects of only looking at fatal NCDs, the age of the women,. The
population described is for those women who have died of an NCD, which thus
excludes all those who were diagnosed early enough for effective treatment or
suffered from a non fatal NCD, and who may have had very different health
seeking behaviours.
Discretionary Revisions
1. The manuscript references the design of the main study, and references some
work related to health seeking behaviour, mainly related to reproductive issues.
They do not reference a body of information on health seeking behaviour of
women in Pakistan, by Shaikh BT, Haran D and myself which may also inform
their research.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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. I am no longer involved in research
related to health seeking behaviour in South Asia
Reviewer's report
Title:Care seeking patterns for non-communicable diseases in rural northwest
Bangladesh
Version: 1Date:18 April 2012
Reviewer: Halida H. Akhter
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
The question is well defined but the focus is very narrow.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
The methods are well defined and well described and in this article the data has
been qualitatively analyzed and answered only one question on care seeking
pathway. Fi these women were from among the women who were under
surveillance under the study, I wonder why the sickness were never reported to
the study monitors or referred for their sickness to facility for treatment.
3. Are the data sound?
The data is sound and obtained from a very well designed prospective study.
However, the data analyzed for this article came for the narrative of a verbal
autopsy interviews by trained medical doctors. The analysis of the verbal autopsy
findings could have been related (or even cross tabulated by) to the woman’s
background in terms to care seeking process and types of providers.
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?
The article has analyzed a very limited data covering only care seeking behavior
of the women who died from non-communicable disease. The results have very
simply described the care seeking pattern for these women. In my opinion the
authors could have analyzed the care seeking patterns by the age and education
of the women. Who made the decision for the selection of the care giver?
Although the data has been collected from interview of the family members of the
woman the educational background of the women has been stored at her
admission into the selection.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Not really. This needs to be articulated. The authors did not look at the
determinants of the care seeking behaviors. I.e. how this relates to the levels of
poverty. The authors have only described the care seeking sequences and
patterns without relating to the learning from the data and making implications or
meaningful recommendations. There was no answer to the question
‘So what? It is more important to understand the decision making process as
they relate to women’s background and her family situation.
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
Yes it is done well. There is no explanation why there is no socioeconomic data
on women but the Verbal autopsy interview could have been done’
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
Yes, the authors have described it well and very simple language.
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.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report
Title:Care-seeking patterns for fatal non-communicable diseases among women
of reproductive age in rural northwest Bangladesh
Version: 3Date:29 May 2012
Reviewer: Halida H. Akhter
Reviewer's report:
There is no need for any further revisions of the article.
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:
My answer is 'NO' t all of the above questions.
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Care-seeking patterns for fatal non-communicable diseases among women
of reproductive age in rural northwest Bangladesh
Version: 3Date:1 June 2012
Reviewer: Juanita Hatcher
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed my previous comments. However, there are still
some areas where the results are not clear and there are inaccuracies in the
numbers.
Minor essential revisions
1. Methods paragraph 1 the size of the population is described as approximately
125,000 at the beginning of the paragraph and ~130,000 at the end of the
paragraph. I assume these should agree
2. Results paragraph 3
I think they should identify the ‘women as having died of an NCD’
3. Results paragraph 3
The numbers are very confusing. I am not sure where the 150 (52%) of women
who saw at least 3 different care providers came from. In figure 1, 130 women
saw 3 different providers, and it is not clear what is the total population for the
52%. Also if 84 women went to 4 or more providers, the %age should be 36%.
4. Results paragraph 4
This paragraph helps clarify the percentages on Figure 1 and may be should
come before the description of Figure 2.
5. Results paragraph 4
The 5th sentence should indicate that only 7% of those who sought medical
treatment from a certified provider, otherwise it is not clear that non certified
providers are not included
6. Results paragraphs 5 and 7
Again there are inconsistencies in numbers. Is the medical college hospital 43 or
48 km away?
7. Table 1 Given that the percentages are given as the percentage of all 341
causes, it may be clearer to also include a category of cause of death of
communicable disease, injury etc, (i.e. not NCD). The percentages would then be
clearer. It is normal to give the total number from which the %ages are
calculated. I think this may also be informative as a measure of the % age of
deaths that are due to NCDs in these women. I am not sure if this is comparable
to other data, but it would provide more evidence of the importance of this work
8. Figure 1 In this figure is difficult to understand where the percentages come
from without the text section. It may be improved if the title were more explicit.
Discretionary Revisions
9. Figure 2 This figure may be improved if the activity boxes and the contributing
factors were different shapes
10. Other
Data are plural, and in 3 instances the word ‘data’ is used in the singular –
Background paragraph 2 line 3, Discussion paragraph 2 line 2, and Conclusion
paragraph 1 line 8/9.
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:Care-seeking patterns for fatal non-communicable diseases among women
of reproductive age in rural northwest Bangladesh
Version: 4Date:26 June 2012
Reviewer: Juanita Hatcher
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed my comments, and I have no further required
revisions
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:"Voices of Fear and Safety" Women's ambivalence towards breast cancer
and breast health: a qualitative study from Jordan
Version: 1Date:8 March 2012
Reviewer: Maggi Banning
Reviewer's report:
I enjoyed reading this paper. I felt that the introduction could have focused more
on the reasons why there is a gap in understanding in relation to deferred breast
health behaviour. The authors focused more on details of the current screening
facilties in Jordan rather than providing distinctive discussion on the relevance
and need for the paper. Do we really need to know that Amnman is the capital
ofJordan etc. I felt that this was a wasted opportiunity to discuss relevant
contextual information on breast health awareness and issues related to
psychological, sociological and culture that may impact on an individuals choice
of participating in screening. I was wondering whether accessibility to screening
centres was assessed by walking or by car. The authors do not refer to whether
the participants had accessibility issues.
Spelling error pg9. Cold.
The paper provided some intersting insights into why women did not participate
in screening , some of these appear to be new and insightful.
I think the paper is worthy of publication if the authors can provide some
background to the relevant literature on breast cancer screening uptake and
difficulties for women.
Reviewer's report
Title:Voices of Fear and Safety Women's ambivalence towards breast cancer
and breast health: a qualitative study from Jordan
Version: 7Date:8 July 2012
Reviewer: Ruth Heisey
Reviewer's report:
Excellent job! All of my concerns have been addressed.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest 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:
No competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Voices of Fear and Safety Women's ambivalence towards breast cancer
and breast health: a qualitative study from Jordan
Version: 7Date:9 July 2012
Reviewer: Maggi Banning
Reviewer's report:
The paper is much improved, flows well and is well structured. it is fit for
publication
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Secular trends in age at menarche and time to establish regular menstrual
cycling in Japanese women born between 1930 and 1985: cross-sectional study
Version: 1Date:25 August 2011
Reviewer: Premananda Bharati
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
Comments: Yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
Comments: More details needed regarding sampling strategies
3. Are the data sound?
Comments: Yes
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
Comments: to some extents.
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
Comments: More discussion is needed, mentioning others study in South Asian
Countries.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Comments: To some extents.
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
Comments: Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
Comments: Title may be reduced in length.
9. Is the writing acceptable?
Comments: This paper only highlighting the secular trends of menstrual age but
more reasons should be reported regarding this event. In the present form, it will
not be accepted for this journal but if the author will able to incorporate the above
mentioned facts, then this paper is acceptable for publication.
Reviewer's report
Title:Secular trends in age at menarche and time to establish regular menstrual
cycling in Japanese women born between 1930 and 1985: cross-sectional study
Version: 1Date:26 November 2011
Reviewer: Ken K Ong
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. I am not aware of much evidence that women with regular cycles have higher
estradiol levels than those without irregular cycles? See PMID:10770172.
Possibly with undernutrition related amenorrhoea, but there are other causes of
irregular cycles. This is a key tenet to their analyses and should be explicitly
discussed and referenced.
2. Rather than indirectly conjecturing that the distribution of the age at start of
ovulatory cycles has widened, the authors could directly calculate age at onset of
regular menstrual cycles and explore how this variable and its variance directly
changes with birth year.
- Minor Essential Revisions
3. While they present an impressive total sample size (n~48,000), the numbers
born in the 1930s (n=106) and 1980s (n=278) are very small so in effect they
study changes between 1940s and 1970s. For comparisons it would be better to
select 1970s as the reference decade.
4. The associations between age at menarche and cancer risks are linear, so it is
unclear why such a rare high risk group needs to be defined by menarche by 10
years and regular cycles within one year.
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'