JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Lippes Loop intrauterine device left in the uterus for 50 years Case report
Assoc.Prof., PH.D.Rosita Aniuliene (rositaan@hotmail.com) , Dept.obst/gyn of
LUHS hospital,Lithuania M.D.Migle Gedgaudaite
(migla.ged@gmail.com),Dept.obst/gyn of LUHS hospital,Lithuania M.D.Povilas
Aniulis (paniulis@gmail.com), Dept.of urology of LUHS hospital,Lithuania
M.D.Vitalija Druktenyte (vitukee@gmail.com),Dept.obst/gyn of LUHS,Lithuania
Corresponding author : Rosita Aniuliene Dept.Obst/gyn of LUHS hospital Eiveniu
2, Kaunas,LT-50009 Lithuania Email. rosita.aniuliene@kaunoklinikos.lt
rositaan@hotmail.com Tel. +37068778631
Version:6Date:13 July 2014
Reviewer: Arthur Leader
Reviewer's report:
English needs to be edited and obvious corrections made.
Interesting finding that should be published for the public record
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:
No competing or conflicting interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Lippes Loop intrauterine device left in the uterus for 50 years Case report
Assoc.Prof., PH.D.Rosita Aniuliene (rositaan@hotmail.com) , Dept.obst/gyn of
LUHS hospital,Lithuania M.D.Migle Gedgaudaite
(migla.ged@gmail.com),Dept.obst/gyn of LUHS hospital,Lithuania M.D.Povilas
Aniulis (paniulis@gmail.com), Dept.of urology of LUHS hospital,Lithuania
M.D.Vitalija Druktenyte (vitukee@gmail.com),Dept.obst/gyn of LUHS,Lithuania
Corresponding author : Rosita Aniuliene Dept.Obst/gyn of LUHS hospital Eiveniu
2, Kaunas,LT-50009 Lithuania Email. rosita.aniuliene@kaunoklinikos.lt
rositaan@hotmail.com Tel. +37068778631
Version:6Date:22 July 2014
Reviewer: Savita Singhal
Reviewer's report:
minor revisions-
grammatical revisions, references to written as per journal guidelines.
the corrections are highlighted in manuscript
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'
Reviewer's report
Title:Lippes Loop intrauterine device left in the uterus for 50 years Case report
Assoc.Prof., PH.D.Rosita Aniuliene (rositaan@hotmail.com) , Dept.obst/gyn of
LUHS hospital,Lithuania M.D.Migle Gedgaudaite
(migla.ged@gmail.com),Dept.obst/gyn of LUHS hospital,Lithuania M.D.Povilas
Aniulis (paniulis@gmail.com), Dept.of urology of LUHS hospital,Lithuania
M.D.Vitalija Druktenyte (vitukee@gmail.com),Dept.obst/gyn of LUHS,Lithuania
Corresponding author : Rosita Aniuliene Dept.Obst/gyn of LUHS hospital Eiveniu
2, Kaunas,LT-50009 Lithuania Email. rosita.aniuliene@kaunoklinikos.lt
rositaan@hotmail.com Tel. +37068778631
Version:6Date:23 July 2014
Reviewer: HEDIYE PINAR GUNBEY
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
*The authors should mention if the infections due to IUD decreased after
discontinuing the use of old plastic devices.Line93 ---The references should be
added at the end of this sentence.’ There have been reported cases about
prolonged usage of the IUD’.
*Line 102--- The references should be added at the end of this sentence
‘’Perforation of the uterus by an IUD has been reported on numerous occasions
and depending upon the degree of penetration through the myometrium can be
partial or complete (2).’’
*Line 109---‘’ In our case, woman had no complains about the intrauterine
device.’’It should be used as patient instead of woman.
*Between line 144-119 the authors should mention about the prospevtive cohort
study shortly.
*The conclusion section should be more wide explaning the importance of case.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests .
Reviewer's report
Title:Simplified Follow-up after Medical Abortion using a Low-sensitivity Urinary
Pregnancy Test and a Checklist in Rajasthan, India -Study Protocol and
Intervention adaptation of a Randomised Control Trial
Version:2Date:1 June 2014
Reviewer: Sharon T Cameron
Reviewer's report:
Minor : follow up: how will the questionnaire on acceptability be conducted ?
anonymous self administered or interviewer administered (bearing in mind that
the RA is not blind to treatment arm)
Phone contact - how many attempts to contact women lost to foliow-up ?will case
records be checked for readmissions (ongoing prey)
Concern is that women may choose a home visit - will need to be sure that the
research assistant does not conduct the test
'tables' used in introduction - should be tablets
No details of the qualitative research given (could remove this)
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:Simplified Follow-up after Medical Abortion using a Low-sensitivity Urinary
Pregnancy Test and a Checklist in Rajasthan, India -Study Protocol and
Intervention adaptation of a Randomised Control Trial
Version:3Date:31 July 2014
Reviewer: Hillary Bracken
Reviewer's report:
MAJOR COMPULSORY
Comment #1: Regardless of where or whether other papers have been published
with this primary outcome, the fact remains that for most clinicians the
identification of ongoing pregnancy after medical abortion is a primary goal of the
follow-up regimen. (See IBackground, Page 4, para 1, reference 17 in the
manuscript.) Indeed, ongoing pregnancy after medical abortion is frequently the
primary outcome in critical trials of the safety and efficacy of the method. The
current sample size will limit the authors ability to comment on the follow-up
scheme's ability to identify this important outcome after medical abortion. I would
suggest that the authors include a sentence describing this limitation in
paragraph 3 on Page 15 of the discussion section.
Page 5, paragraphs 1 and 2: Is the Veda.Lab test currently available for sale in
India? If so, what is the local cost?These data may be added to Page 5.
Information on this may be relevant for the discussion section of the feasibility of
the follow-up scheme and the longterm implications of the 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:Are mothers able to detect their daughter's breast bud? Validation study in
the Chilean Growth Obesity Cohort Study
Version:3Date:2 December 2013
Reviewer: Carol Joinson
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-written manuscript that describes a cross-sectional validation study
comparing evaluation of breast bud development in 481 girls aged 6-9 years
(mean age 7.8 years) conducted by a nutritionist trained specially for this
assessment with mothers’ and daughters’ evaluations of breast development
using Tanner staging photos.
Studies comparing self- and maternal assessments of pubertal development
indicators with those of trained personnel are important because large-scale
epidemiological studies often depend on self-assessments.
The methods for this study are appropriate and clearly described.
The finding that mothers can be good evaluators of breast bud appearance in
their daughters is potentially important for studies relying on maternal reports of
their daughters’ breast development.
A limitation of this study is the very young age of the girls leading to only a small
number (14%) who presented with breast buds (Tanner stage II). The age of the
girls in this study could have explained the lack of reliability of girls’ self-reported
evaluations of breast development. The young age of the sample also limits
generalisbility to other studies since the results do not shed light on the extent of
agreement between breast bud evaluations of mothers, daughters and trained
personnel as girls mature through Tanner stages I to V. This limitation of the
study needs to be clearer in the discussion and I recommend this as a minor
essential revision.
The authors also discuss potential issues of generalizability of the findings to
other countries and cultures and remark that the conservative attitudes to sex
education in Chile may affect the extent to which findings are generalizable. This
limitation needs to be discussed in the context of the young age of the sample.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Are mothers able to detect their daughter's breast bud? Validation study in
the Chilean Growth Obesity Cohort Study
Version:3Date:24 June 2014
Reviewer: Ken K Ong
Reviewer's report:
This is a novel and useful validation study comparing mothers and child’s ability
to detect early pubertal breast buds compared to a research nutritionist as the
Gold standard. The findings should be relevant to the design of other childhood
studies, where gold-standard assessments are not possible.
Minor comments:
1. The description of the cohort as “pre-pubertal” does not seem to be accurate,
as by definition of breast-budding, 14% have evidence of puberty onset.
2. It is unclear whether mothers (were asked to) performed breast palpation or
only inspection?
3. Clarify whether the ratings of the three assessors were ‘blinded’ from each
other’s.
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:Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Infection in a Clinical Presentation of
Fitz-Hugh-Curtis Syndrome: A Case Report and Literature Review
Version:1Date:21 April 2014
Reviewer: Tarek Shokeir
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions:-
-Reading this manuscript we can assume that this is a primary case with
nontuberculous mycobacterial (NTM) pelvic infection associated with
Fitz-Hugh-Curtis syndrome (FHCS). This strong and a more logic possibility can
be supported by the laparoscopic findings of multiple miliary-like nodules on the
pelvic peritoneal surfaces. So, our question is that "How did the author(s)
differentiate between FHCS and T.B peritonitis?.
-This paper was not supported by adequate literature review as proposed by the
author(s) in the title. We would like to suggest a more informative one :
"Nontuberculous mycobacterial infection in a clinical presentation of
Fitz-Hugh-Curtis syndrome: a case report with multigene diagnostic approach".
-How did the author(s) exclude other causes of right upper quadrant pain?.
-Section of "Background": The author(s) stated that " However, genital or
extrapulmonary Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) infection is often neglected
during FHCS diagnosis". No cited references were given. Comparison of your
data with previous reports should be given in the section of discussion.
-A subheading of "Discussion" must be added to the text. Discussion is too long
and should be subdivided into smaller paragraphs.
-Comparison of data with other studies with multigene diagnostic approach would
be very beneficial.
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:
None declared.
Reviewer's report
Title:Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Infection in a Clinical Presentation of
Fitz-Hugh-Curtis Syndrome: A Case Report and Literature Review
Version:1Date:14 May 2014
Reviewer: Paolo Ricci
Reviewer's report:
It is an interesting and unusual case for reading. Congratulations to the authors
for sharing with readers of BMC Women`s Health.
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:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Sexual behaviour, Contraceptive Knowledge and Use among Female
University Students in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: a cross-sectional study
Version:3Date:14 March 2014
Reviewer: Peter Gichangi
Reviewer's report:
There are comments on the paper which also needs to be addressed. This has
been uploaded.
Compulsory revisions
Justification for the study which should be part of the introduction
Clear description of how the sample was selected and questionnaire distributed
and state whether they had the right power
Below are minor comments which also need to be addressed
Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
The question as stated is okay. However, it gives the impression that the study
will be generalizable to Tanzanian female students which is not the case.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
The study design chosen is appropriate. However, there is no information given
on whether the sample size chosen, they had 80% power and were 95%
confident that they could answer the question they set the answer.
3. Are the data sound?
The data as presented is okay. However, the authors present almost a very
unusual situation where there was 100% response rate for self-administered
questionnaires! Were there any students who declined to participate and if so,
were they different from those who participated?
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
The manuscript follows the required standard.
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
The discussion is okay. It is notable however that the authors seem to interpret
differences in their findings vis-a-vis other studies as discrepancies! There are
some data discussed which was not presented in the results section.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
The limitation discussed should have been addressed when setting up the study.
It is not clear why the authors discuss sample size as a limitation since they
should have included the right sample from the beginning
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
The authors do acknowledge the references. It is however not clear why this
study was done to begin with since it does not seem to further what other studies
had documented before!
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
The abstract covers the content of the paper. However, the title as noted above
is not appropriate and should be revised to state the only universities covered.
9. Is the writing acceptable?
There are very many grammatical errors which the authors need to engage a
native English speaker to help them improve on grammar.
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:
None
Reviewer's report
Title:Sexual behaviour, contraceptive knowledge and use among female
undergraduates' students of Muhimbili and Dar es Salaam Universities,
Tanzania: a cross-sectional study
Version:5Date:1 July 2014
Reviewer: Peter Gichangi
Reviewer's report:
None
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:
None
Reviewer's report
Title:Effect of metformin on serum interleukin-6 levels in PCOS: a systematic
review
Version:2Date:7 May 2014
Reviewer: uzochukwu aniebue
Reviewer's report:
1. Abstract: the stated conclusion in the abstract is not consistent with the
findings of the review. The alternative hypothesis was not proved by the review
as was suggested in that conclusion.
2. RESULT: The result section was very restrictive in expression of findings of
the articles reviewed leaving the reader with too little information to judge
the inferences derived. Table 1 should have consisted of two tables to bring out
the effect of dose and administration methods of metformin on serum IL-6 in
PCO. Similarly how did sampling affect outcome as alluded in the study.
3. DISCUSSION: Paragraph 2 line 1 is unclear and probably incomplete.
Generally this section requires extensive language editing for clarity. The
relationship between obesity and PCO should have been presented clearly in the
result section prior to being discussed.
Reviewer's report
Title:Effect of metformin on serum interleukin-6 levels in PCOS: a systematic
review
Version:2Date:19 May 2014
Reviewer: Zi-Jiang Chen
Reviewer's report:
In their article, Xinghua Xu et al. made a systematic review on the results of
Effect of metformin on serum interleukin-6 levels in PCOS up to November 2013
in 191 PCOS women and 183 controls. Of these, the Rotterdam diagnostic
criteria were used in 2 studies; while the NIH criteria were used in 1 article. The
authors of the other 2 researches used their own criteria; however, the patients
also met the NIH criteria.
PCOS women often have insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia and elevated
serum IL-6 levels. And the elevated IL-6 levels was reported to have links with
insulin resistance and hyperandrogenism in PCOS. Metformin might have
beneficial effects on the chronic low-grade inflammatory background associated
with PCOS.
This report focusing on the effect of metformin on IL-6 level provides information
of interest to the readers. However, the manuscript suffers from shortcomings
that need to be addressed. Amongst these, I noted the following primary issues:
? The readers would like to better understand the patient condition. Currently, we
are given the number of PCOS and controls, however, we do not know whether
they are BMI matched or have abnormal glucose metabolism in Luque-Ramirez
et al. [16] and Ciaraldi et al. [18] study.
? The author reported “Serum IL-6 did not show any statistically significant
difference before and after the treatment of metformin
The decrease observed in serum IL-6 levels in the patients treated with
metformin correlated inversely with the increase in the insulin sensitivity index
and directly with the decrease in the insulin secretion index” in Table 1. It is
somewhat different from the theme of this article. Can you explain it?
? “Only Lin et al. 2011 reported a significant decrease in IL-6 levels after
metformin treatment in women with PCOS. While the other two studies observed
that the treatment-related reductions in IL-6 levels were significantly correlated
with the insulin metabolism. In the remaining two studies, plasma IL-6 levels did
not change during the therapy of metformin”. The author said sample size might
be the reason of the drift results of the researches. What do you think is the other
explanation?
Based on above questions, I recommend that the article be accepted with minor
revision.
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:
No
Reviewer's report
Title:Postmenopausal women with osteopenia and a healed wrist fracture have
reduced physical function and quality of life compared to a matched, healthy
control group without fracture. A cross-sectional study with a control group.
Version:2Date:16 December 2013
Reviewer: Benjamin Buecking
Reviewer's report:
Thank you very much for the opportunity to review the manuscript of Hakestad et
al. about the physical function and quality of life of women after healed wrist
fracture.
This study investigates an interesting correlation between healed wrist fractures
and function/QOL in a small cohort. This will make a contribution to current
literature, although there are some important limitations.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. Methods: Please clarify: Was the presented study a subgroup analysis of a
RCT and if so give a brief description what was investigated in this study.
Perhaps the procedures in this study pose a bias? Please discuss as a limitation
2. Results: Consider performing a multivariate analysis to adjust for BMD.
Minor Essential Revisons:
1. Abstract: Please give full information of the p-values in the abstract
2. Lines 43-46: The Background section can be shortened: e.g. both sentences
can be deleted.
3. Line 50: Please provide a citation.
4. Lines 63-64: Please rewrite. I do not think, that there (in general) are only few
studies including women with wrist fractures.
5. Lines 68 – 76: Consider deletion – it seems to be beyond the scope of the
presented study/data. Alternatively transfer into the discussion section.
6. Line 86: Gender as a matching variable? – I think only women were included.
7. Where the sample size analysis based on the data of the cited previous
studies? Please clarify.
8. Line 196: It can NOT be concluded, that a clinical difference in knee extension
underlines the important role of muscle strengthening in preventing osteoporotic
fractures and falls based on the presented data – please rewrite.
9. Line 246: Causality is not “difficult” to establish – it is impossible to be
established.
Discretionary Revisions
1. Results/Tables: I would prefer to use 95% CI instead of SD consistently.
Please add p-values.
2. Results: Figure 1 is redundant and can be deleted.
3. Lines 181-186 can be deleted.
4. Lines 249 – 251 can be deleted.
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:Postmenopausal women with osteopenia and a healed wrist fracture have
reduced physical function and quality of life compared to a matched, healthy
control group without fracture. A cross-sectional study with a control group.
Version:2Date:30 December 2013
Reviewer: Alberto Argentiero
Reviewer's report:
The paper is original and really interesting. The information are clearly exposed.
Furthermore it is well written and well structured.
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