JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report 
 Time to Decide: Risk-Reducing Mastectomy and BRCA1/2 Gene Mutation Carriers Title: 
 1  10 October 2006 Version: Date: 
 Bettina Mesier Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
This manuscript describes a qualitative study of the experiences of three women of are carriers of a 
BRCA1/2 mutation and are considering prophylactic mastectomy. Data were collected as part a pilot study 
that assessed a new decision support strategy aimed at women considering prophylactic mastectomy. The topic of the manuscript is important, given the data that have become available recently that demonstrate 
the efficacy of prophylactic mastectomy in reducing breast cancer risk amongst women from families at high 
risk of developing breast/ovarian cancer. The authors correctly state that few data are currently available on 
the efficacy of decision support strategies aimed at this group of women. 
The manuscript is clearly structured, well written and appropriately referenced. It does however have several
shortcomings in particular with regard to the justification and description of the research methodology 
chosen. The authors fail to provide a rationale for the mixed methodology that was chosen. Also, while the three case descriptions may be adequate for a case report, it is unlikely that informational redundancy was 
achieved, which is generally used in qualitative studies as a guide to the required sample size. Furthermore, 
the qualitative analysis should be described in more detail, for example whether the interviews were 
transcribed, whether a particular analytic framework was used to guide the analysis etc. Given the very 
small sample size, the meaningfulness of the results using quantitative measures is limited; in particular the authors at times appear to over-interpret the significance of the meaning of the findings using these 
measures, for example on page 9, were explicit reference is made to one of the participant’s baseline 
knowledge and decisional conflict scores. 
Over all this paper makes interesting reading. However, it may be more appropriate to submit the 
manuscript as a case report, rather than an original research support, given the limitations of the 
methodology that was employed and the sample size in particular. 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report 
 Time to decide about risk-reducing mastectomy: A case series of BRCA1/2 gene mutation carriers Title: 
 2  15 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 Nina Hallowell Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have addressed my previous comments satisfactorily, both 
within the text or in their response, I am therefore, happy to recommend 
publishing this article with no further revisions. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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)
Reviewer's report 
 Time to decide about risk-reducing mastectomy: A case series of BRCA1/2 gene mutation carriers Title: 
 2  23 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 Bettina Mesier Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
The authors have addressed all the issues I had raised in my original review, and I am satisfied with the 
revised manuscript. 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review:
Reviewer's report 
 The Womens international study of long-duration oestrogen after menopause (WISDOM): a Title: 
randomised controlled trial
 1  25 September 2006 Version: Date: 
 Zephne Van Der Spuy Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Thank you for asking me to comment on this manuscript . It is long and essentially outlines the background 
to the WISDOM trial and in considerable detail describes how the trial design was decided upon and what 
power calculations were done . 
No results are presented and there is no discussion or conclusion (you asked me to comment on this .) 
The background is well writtten and comprehensive . It reviews the reasons for setting up the trial and for 
terminating it prematurely . The investigators seem to have gone to inordinate lengths to ensure compliance 
from participants and to a certain extent this delayed the start of the study . Unfortunately it was terminated 
very early and less than 25% of the proposed number of participants had been recruited and the duration of 
treatment was short . It will be interesting to get the report on the information which they did obtain. 
Undoubtedly this was a very well designed and executed study and took enormous resources . 
It is regrettable that the results of the WHI study resulted in this trial being stopped as the women recruited 
were younger than in the WHI, and healthy ,and it is possible that the results may have been different . 
However undoubtedly continuation would have been difficult in the light of the results from WHI. 
While I found this manuscript interesting and easy to read and very detailed , I think the authors should have 
included at least a short discussion . Having described the trial design and some of the problems , it ends 
rather abruptly . I thought perhaps I had neglected to print out the discussion
Reviewer's report 
 Sleep complaints and repressive coping in a sample of older Black and White women Title: 
 3  18 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Luigi Ferini Strambi 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 
The Introduction section, as well as the Discussion, should be shortened. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report 
 Sleep complaints and repressive coping in a sample of older Black and White women Title: 
 3  28 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Mary G Umlauf Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
Measurement & Analysis concerns: 
1. No data was provided regarding “somatic complaint” from the CARE instrument. What is it? If it was 
presumed relevant in the design phase - what were the findings? 2. No definition was provided for “leg problems” - I cannot intuit what this might be as a single disorder - 
claudication, arthritis, . . . In sleep studies this might also infer restless leg syndrome. 
3. Insomnia definition – This is a significant problem without a time reference (over what reporting interval) and the other qualities mentioned (frequency, duration or severity). The language of the analysis suggest that insomnia is the primary sleep problem of these women. It would seem that these are discreet "sleep 
symptoms" given the fact that there is insufficient data for diagnosing insomnia or for elevating the group of 
symptoms to the level of a diagnostic disorder. 4. Medical demographics: It appears that the White women have significantly more co-morbidities that are readily associated with discreet sleep disorders (arthritis – pain; heart disease – central apnea; respiratory 
disease – orthopnea). These facts are extremely relevant given the age of the sample but not mentioned in 
the discussion. 
5. Individual medical co-morbidities were not used in the statistical analysis to examine the various sleep symptoms. Given the risk of sleep disorders associated with specific conditions, this seems essential. 
6. Your analysis contains only correlations. Had you considered using regression? I recommend a statistical
consult in this regard. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
See above. 
Although this is a wonderful study, given that the sample consists of older persons, it is extremely relevant 
to consider medical co-morbidities in the statistical analysis and discussion. It is also important to sort out 
the issue of "sleep symptoms" instead of using a diagnostic term (e.g. see first heading under Discussion). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
Shorten the the discussion section. 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review:
Reviewer's report 
 Sleep complaints and repressive coping in a sample of older Black and White women Title: 
 5  16 January 2007 Version: Date: 
 Luigi Ferini Strambi Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General: No more revisions 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report 
 Sleep complaints and repressive coping in a sample of older Black and White women Title: 
 5  16 January 2007 Version: Date: 
 Mary G Umlauf Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General - this version has met my previous concerns as a reviewer. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
none 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
none 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
none 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report 
 The clinical diagnosis of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease--symptoms and signs in 189 patients visiting a Title: 
Swedish university hospital emergency department 
 2  15 May 2006 Version: Date: 
 Ian Simms Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Any epidemiological study of PID is difficult to undertake, and the following comments should be seen in 
this light. However, I found that the focus of the study difficult to identify. A variety of themes are included at 
length in the discussion (the prevalence of chlamydia within the local population; national chlamydia 
screening within Sweden) all of which are not directly related to the study. Having read the paper through I 
think that the aim of the study needs to be changed as it is concerned with how closely the diagnostic criteria fitted the CDC guidelines, not the basis for the diagnosis of PID. Either way the study is viewed, there is a fundemental problem with the fact that the cases that were mis-diagnosed are not included. I 
would have thought that is was better to look at all cases that meet the diagnostic criteria and then analyse 
all the cases. It is also worth remembering that the CDC guidelines are not just based on available clinical 
evidence, other issues such as US public health policy relating to the US medical system and the political climate, also influence the guidelines. The authors need to include more reference to the other studies that 
have looked at the quality of PID diagnosis. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
In view of the comments above, I suggest the the aim of the paper is re-thought and the data re-analysed. 
At present no statistical analysis is included: this needs to be shown. The discussion should be re-thought 
and focused on the findings of the study. In the existing text several of the comments made are not 
interpreted correctly. For example, the mandatory notification of chlamydia cases resulted in a lower success rate in partner notification, which probably compromised the screening initiative (page 10). At present this is not how this statement appears in the text. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report 
 The clinical diagnosis of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease-- reuse of electronic medical record data from Title: 
189 patients visiting a Swedish university hospital emergency department 
 3  12 July 2006 Version: Date: 
 Blackford Middleton Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
Iâ €™d suggest the revised paper still is of marginal interest, but is worthy of publication. Iâ €™d suggest 
that the two papers be combined into one submission.
Reviewer's report 
 A descriptive study of variables associated with obtaining nipple aspirate fluid in a cohort of Title: 
non-lactating women 
 2  13 August 2006 Version: Date: 
 Edward Sauter Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
In the response to reviewers, the authors have addressed the concerns listed satisfactorily. Unfortunately, 
for one of the responses the corresponding manuscript text does not provide the same message, or at least 
not as clearly. Specifically, this reviewer would like the response in the text to the question regarding 
exogenous vs endogenous estrogen to replicate the reponse to reviewers from "It seems likely..." to the end 
of the response. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report 
 A descriptive study of variables associated with obtaining nipple aspirate fluid in a cohort of Title: 
non-lactating women 
 3  14 September 2006 Version: Date: 
 Edward Sauter Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Changes are acceptable. No further revisions needed. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review:
Reviewer's report 
 Effects of tamoxifen on vaginal blood flow and epithelial morphology in the rat. Title: 
 1  2 June 2006 Version: Date: 
 Fernand Labrie Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
1) The approximately 20 ng/ml plasma E2 concentration found in ovariectomized animals strongly suggests 
a specificity problem with the assay used. Plasma E2 should be measured by mass spectrometry. 
2) The morphology should be described in greater detail: Laminar propria, muscularis? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
Minor essential revisions: 
1) Fig 6 and legend, Please identify the various groups in the legend and on the figure 
2) Page 12, second paragraph 
Please explain the data in more detail 3) The discussion should be centered on the observations made. General discussions such as of the mechanism of action of estrogen, co-activatorsâ €¦ should be markedly reduced or removed. A total 
reduction of the discussion by one third would seem reasonable. 
4) It should be clearly stated that the specificity of the effect of tamoxifen can be different in the human and rat. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review:
Reviewer's report 
 Effects of tamoxifen on vaginal blood flow and epithelial morphology in the rat. Title: 
 1  15 June 2006 Version: Date: 
 Taisen Iguchi Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is a straight forward experimental design and well organized. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
The present reviewer have no major argument on this manuscript. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
This is a well-organized and well-written paper. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: 
I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
Reviewer's report 
 Effects of tamoxifen on vaginal blood flow and epithelial morphology in the rat. Title: 
 2  26 June 2006 Version: Date: 
 Seyma Hascalik 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) 
Abstract 
-Background should be shortened. Some of the information in which Tx should be transported into 
Introduction. 
Results: 
-How the mean vaginal weight was measured? 
-â €œTamoxifen treatment caused a significant decrease in mean uterine weights, whereas mean vaginal 
weights were similar in control and tamoxifen-infused ratsâ € This sentence is not clear. It should be 
reaaranged. 
Conclusion: 
-The sentence beginning with â €œFurther research is required to better understand the clinical symptoms 
associated with tamoxifen treatment and their effects on sexual function in womenâ € should be removed. 
Introduction 
This sentence starting with â €œIn a study designed to specifically assess the effects of tamoxifen on sexual
function in women, 22 of 41 sexually active subjects (54%) experienced pain/discomfort during intercourse 
that was unrelated to previous chemotherapy [7]. The duration of tamoxifen treatment ranged from 2 to 24 months with a median duration of 12 months.â € should be carried into Discussion. 
Material and Method 
The paragraph related to â €œDetermination of plasma estradiol concentration â €œ is too long and must be 
slashed. 
All of biochemical and histopathological procedure should be shortened. 
If the authors have sufficient vaginal tissue they can optionally measure the tissue NO levels. 
Results 
Page 12, line 3,4: In vivo studies in anesthetized rats demonstrated frequency-dependent increases in............ Instead of â €œIn vivoâ € Present study......should be written. 
vaginal blood flow in response to pelvic nerve stimulation. 
Discussion 
It should be slashed. 
According to me, after the point-to point correction of these queries by the authors, this article is suitable for 
publication. 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests'