JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:"I am alone and isolated": A qualitative study of experiences of women
living with genital fistula in Uganda
Version:1Date:21 April 2015
Reviewer: Joseph Ruminjo
Reviewer's report:
The authors are to be congratulated: this is a very good, deep and rich paper;
there are now many quantitative methodology papers in the field, but few really
good, really in-depth qualitative ones; This paper is a significant contribution to
the field in that regard; one cannot read through it without feeling greatly moved,
and the narrative is also clear and succint for the most part.
Major compulsory revisions: none
Minor essential revisions:
1 abstract firs paragraph, global figure of 2 million is now old, does not have
much to back it; there is more recent analysis published e.g. by Ozge and
colleagues
2.there are several typos and grammar issues; not many and not serious, but will
need to be edited out
3. Methods: specify whether women were all pre op or a mixture since - in the
main body - it say they were recruited from admission to discharge; also what
were the numbers in the focus groups
4. materials and methods - especially study setting - is a bit long; of course, it is a
bit of a balance between giving adequate info and elaborating too much as in a
Thesis requirement vs a journal paper; but some of the info does not have a
direct bearing on the study and results and could comfortably be edited down.
5. the issue of why under 18s are included is repetitive in the methods section
since it is also addressed in the ethics section, to some extent (can be combined
there)
6.the FGD guide nos 6,7, 8 seem not to have not been used or, at least, the data
is not analysed and reported; which may be fine for this study but for ethical
reasons and prudent use of resources, a statement is needed on why those
items are not as prominently reflected.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
No competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:The impact of previous ovarian surgery on ovarian reserve in patients with
endometriosis
Version:1Date:23 February 2015
Reviewer: Grzegorz R.G. Raba
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Study group is heterogeneous and not uniform.
2. Authors retrospectively conclude that a history of ovarian surgery predicts
deteriorating ovarian reserve in patients with endometriosis. Conclusion is based
on AMH level which was mesured in different intervals of time after operations.
Unfortunatelly in those patients in study group there is no evidence of AMH level
before operations. Therefore we can not conclude that operation was the
causative factor lowering AMH level.
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 no competing interests in relation to this paper
Reviewer's report
Title:The impact of previous ovarian surgery on ovarian reserve in patients with
endometriosis
Version:1Date:7 March 2015
Reviewer: Laura Benaglia
Reviewer's report:
Chang et al investigate the impact of previous ovaian surgery in women with
endometriosis, retrospectively. The question posed by the atuthors is well
defined buti t is not a new issue in literature. There are many manuscripts about
the decrease of AMH after ovarian surgery. However, the methods are
appropriate and well described. The analysis of the data is accurate and the
results are in line with previous studies. The discussion and conclusions are well
written. However, I think that tthere are too few refernces to available data. I think
that the real limitation of the work is that the study is not a new study and does
not report any new concept. The authors, should add a review of the literature,
with a table for example, to make more interesting the manuscript.The
manuscript is globally well written and well done.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:The impact of previous ovarian surgery on ovarian reserve in patients with
endometriosis
Version:1Date:5 March 2015
Reviewer: Maria Grazia Porpora
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
The article is interesting and easy to understand although there are already many
studies in the literature on the topic. English is acceptable, the tables and figures
are clear and simple to understand, the large sample of patients is
homogeneous. As indicated by the authors, there are several limitation to this
study: it is a retrospectvie study, there is a large interval from ovarian surgery to
collection of AMH sample; data about surgical records are incomplete. Therefore
the article needs to be revised before being accepted, according to the following
points:
1. Add current references (2014-2015)
2. Clarify the timing of AMH blood sample after surgery and if there is a
statistically significant difference in different months.
3. Assess, if possible, the AMH value before surgery to compare it and the post
operative AMH value.
4. Clarify the subgroups of endometriosis. In patients without ovarian
endometriomas, where endometriosis foci were located?
5. Have you found a different AMH value in different stages of endometriosis?
What does the current literature report in this regard?
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:Long-acting reversible contraception: understanding low uptake in Australia:
a qualitative study
Version:2Date:23 February 2015
Reviewer: Beth Sundstrom
Reviewer's report:
DISCRETIONARY REVISIONS ONLY
It is important to better understand low uptake of LARC methods. I applaud the
authors for addressing this important topic. The authors present rich, robust data,
and an in-depth analysis, which contributes to the body of knowledge on LARC
methods.
The research method and design selected match the manuscript’s stated goals
and are appropriate for this study. I recommend that the authors address the
following questions:
• How did you account for self-selection bias during recruitment of health care
professionals? If this was not possible, it should be noted as a limitation of the
study.
• Although purposive sampling is appropriate in this context, could you explain
the reason for the many different types of health care professionals sampled and
any differences between these groups (including differences in their interview
responses)?
• Could you expand on how you knew that data saturation was reached after the
13th interview?
• Similarly, did you reach data saturation after four focus groups? How was this
determined?
The data analysis and results adequately answer the research questions. In
particular, Table 3 provides an excellent snapshot of the findings.
The discussion and conclusions provide important implications for research and
practice. I recommend that the authors expand on the limitations of the study. For
example, I think it is important to acknowledge the inherent challenges of
combining the perspectives of health care providers and young women.
This manuscript takes a novel approach, proposing new ideas rather than just
replicating existing research. This study adds value to the literature and I
recommend publication with the discretionary revisions described above.
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:Long-acting reversible contraception: understanding low uptake in Australia:
a qualitative study
Version:2Date:8 March 2015
Reviewer: Kirsten I Black
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript which seeks, through
qualitative methods to answer a well defined question. In doing so, the authors
appear to acknowledge previous key research in the area.
The methods are sound but the location of the health professionals with regard to
urban/rural is not described as it is for the sample of women. In addition I suggest
that the information about nurse practitioner provision and medicare billing is
included in the introduction, not in the methods. The results are clearly presented
and highlight that women and health care practitioners agree on many of the key
barriers. The limitations are not mentioned but should include a lack of diversity
in the health professional included in the study (all had an interest in sexual and
reproductive health and their location was possibly mainly urban).
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 have previously been a advisor on an international Board for Bayer Health Care
that makes the levonorgestrel intrauterine system. I am not longer working with
this organisation.
Reviewer's report
Title:Long-acting reversible contraception: understanding low uptake in Australia:
a qualitative study
Version:2Date:9 March 2015
Reviewer: Caroline Harvey
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer's report : Long-acting reversible contraception: understanding low
uptake in Australia: a qualitative study: Garrett et al
-----------------
While overall the study is of high level of interest and methodologically sound, a
major reservation is the lack of discussion of its limitations. It is a useful
exploratory study with small but quite possibly unrepresentative sample groups
(both young women and health professionals) upon which further research could
build. The title could be more specific in identifying what this particular study
addresses.
The discussion section of this manuscript needs to include a more detailed
consideration of the limitations of this study .These limitations could then be
acknowledged within the phrasing and language of some of its conclusions and
recommendations (modification of the rather sweeping conclusions).
Major Revisions
The limitations discussion specifically needs to
1. discuss the representativeness and generalisability of the findings in relation to
the sample participants of both of the study arms. In particular, the heterogeneity
of the “health professionals group” is striking and should modify conclusions
drawn about the interview findings.
2. discuss the lack of differentiation of the barriers to uptake and use of implants
and to intrauterine devices in the methodology. While the methods are both
LARCs with similar efficacy, it is likely that at least some of the barriers to their
greater use are method specific (for example insertion issues with IUDs are very
different to those of implants)
Discretionary Revisions
A number of suggested discretionary revisions are provided as comments on the
pdf of the manuscript (attached)
Level of interest
-----------------
The study is of high level of interest. Suboptimal uptake of LARC methods in
Australia has been identified and the need for evidenced based strategies called
for. As the authors identify, there is little known about the reasons for this and
further research to inform policy and system changes required.
Quality of written English
--------------------------
The overall language is of acceptable standard
Quality of Figures
------------------
The tables are satisfactory however are probably superfluous given the small
sample size and qualitative methodology used. The participants of both groups
are adequately described in the text of the manuscript.
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'
What next?
-----------------------
Accept if the discussion and conclusion include more detailed consideration of
study limitations
Reviewer's report
Title:Understanding the low uptake of long-acting reversible contraception by
young women in Australia: a qualitative study
Version:4Date:21 June 2015
Reviewer: Beth Sundstrom
Reviewer's report:
It is important to better understand low uptake of LARC methods. I applaud the
authors for addressing this important topic. The authors present rich, robust data,
and an in-depth analysis, which contributes to the body of knowledge on LARC
methods.
The research method and design selected match the manuscript’s stated goals
and are appropriate for this study.
The data analysis and results adequately answer the research questions. In
particular, Table 3 provides an excellent snapshot of the findings.
The discussion and conclusions provide important implications for research and
practice.
This manuscript takes a novel approach, proposing new ideas rather than just
replicating existing research. This study adds value to the literature and I
recommend publication.
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:Menstrual patterns and disorders among secondary school adolescents in
Egypt. A cross-sectional survey
Version:2Date:17 April 2015
Reviewer: Majed S Bata
Reviewer's report:
1. The results:
The second word( range) in the third paragraph should be omitted (line 118).
The word nearly in the first line in the fifth paragraph should start with a small
letter (line 134).
Add (each cycle) after the word school in the last line in the results ( line 142).
2. The Discussion:
The word irregular is better replaced by infrequent in the fourth line in paragraph
six (line 190).
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:Menstrual patterns and disorders among secondary school adolescents in
Egypt. A cross-sectional survey
Version:2Date:29 April 2015
Reviewer: Solomon K Gumanga
Reviewer's report:
The comments are included in the file attached. Major compulsory revisions must
be made to the manuscript.
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:Rural Women are more likely to Use Long Acting Contraceptive in Tigray
Region: A Comparative Community Based Study
Version:3Date:18 December 2014
Reviewer: Funmilola M OlaOlorun
Reviewer's report:
Please see attached document.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Rural Women are more likely to Use Long Acting Contraceptive in Tigray
Region: A Comparative Community Based Study
Version:3Date:28 December 2014
Reviewer: Saba Masho
Reviewer's report:
This study aims at comparing and identifying factors affecting utilization of long
acting contraceptive use in urban and rural setting in Tigray, Ethiopia. Authors
should be commended for a well designed study that addresses a very important
problem. Despite its strengths there are some limitations that need to be
addressed.
Major Compulsory Revisions
Introduction/Background
1. The background section provides a very good synopsis of the magnitude of
the problem. However, it doesn’t provide adequate information or rational for the
rural/urban comparison.
2. Factors influencing long acting contraceptive methods have been studied
elsewhere and it would be beneficial to discuss findings from those studies (what
are the factors that are already known, limitations of those studies if any etc.) and
indicate the contribution of this study.
3. Did the authors use any theoretical framework to guide the study?
Methods
4. The urban area is a small town and I wonder if it is considered urban
compared to other big cities in Tigray. May be the availability of health care (a
hospital and health centers and clinics) is the contributing factor.
5. There was no mention of the type of measures used in the survey.
Additionally, the reliability and validity of the measures should be clearly
indicated.
6. Was the interview face to face? Was it computer assisted or paper and pencil?
Results
7. Result is a repeat of everything in the table. Also, the main focus was on the
descriptive aspect of the study. Are the differences described statistically
significant?
Discussion
8. The discussion section pretty much reiterates the findings. It would be useful if
the authors compare and contrast the findings of the current study with other
studies, reasons for the findings, practical implication of the study, and strength
and limitation of the study.
9. The discussion focuses on the descriptive data – I think the discussion should
focus on findings from the regression analysis.
Minor Essential Revision
Overall, the paper needs some editing for grammatical errors.
Abstract
1. Background – the background section needs to provide a rational for the
study. The last sentence needs editing.
2. Conclusion - include recommendation.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:Rural Women are more likely to Use Long Acting Contraceptive in Tigray
Region: A Comparative Community Based Study
Version:3Date:4 January 2015
Reviewer: Nkomba Kayeyi
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer's report:
This paper has valuable information on contraceptive use in Ethiopia. I found the
information of long acting contraceptive interesting, especially with the finding
that more women in the rural region of Ethiopia were using these compared to
the urban women. However, I found a number of weaknesses in the paper, which
the authors have to address to improve the paper.
Major compulsory revisions:
1. I found that the main objective of this study was not clear. I do not understand
why the authors of this study compared these two (2) populations, Wukro Town
and Kilteawlaelo district. What were they trying to achieve by comparing these
two populations?
2. Method Section
a. Sampling: the authors stated that the sample size for both populations were
selected proportion to size. Why was the population size the same for both
samples, ie. 517 vs. 518?
b. Variables: the authors have not defined the variables used in the study
c. Statistical Analysis:
i. The authors have not presented a step-by-step description of the analysis in
the methods section. So it is difficult to replicate the study.
ii. The authors have not stated if they did a multivariate analysis or univariate
analysis in the logistics analysis in table 5. They have to understand that even in
the univariate logistics analysis you can control or adjust for variables.
iii. I have a concern on how the authors have compared use of Long Acting
Contraceptives for the two populations. They have not stated if they standardised
the data for the two populations before analysis? If they did not standardise the
data then their analysis is wrong.
3. Discussion
a. It is difficult to follow the discussion because much of what has been
presented is just a repetition of the results. The authors have to do a lot of work
to bring it to standard.
4. Conclusion
a. What the authors have written here is again the repeat of the results.
5. Note: More specific comments in the attached paper.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Anti-stress effects of short-term fasting in menstrual phases in young
women
Version:3Date:18 March 2015
Reviewer: Lisa Troy
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript provides a new and interesting perspective on decreased
physiological stress through short-term fasting. The manuscript would benefit
from some editing and clarifications. Please see specific comments below.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
None
Minor Essential Revisions:
Abstract, short-term fasting (ADD mean fasting period for participants) It appears
that the fasting period was about 12 hours. The fasting time period would be
useful to state in the abstract and give mean or range of fasting time for study
subjects in the methods;
Abstract and Background: Definition of what is meant by "anti-stress"effects" for
your study would be useful. the Background covers a broad range of treatments
that may impact several domains of stress. The current study looks specifically at
physiological stress in terms of HR, cortisol, etc.
Methods
p.6 line 17, Describe all exclusion criteria for the study. Currently two criteria are
described but from the wording "including" it appears other exclusion criteria
were used.
p. 8, lines 14-18. Provide more specific information on the meal composition
regarding carbohydrate quality, specifically whole grain (or fiber content) vs
refined grain and added sugar composition of the meal.
Discussion: addition explanation of findings in the context of other literature. are
needed. for example, p.13, lines 22-24 "differences in conditions of the subjects"
does this mean overweight vs lean? shorter or longer fasting periods; eating
disorders vs normal eating? Please clarify. A careful review of the discussion is
recommended to identify other areas that would benefit from clarification.
Discretionary Revisions
Figures: the lines and * indicators of statistical significance are somewhat
confusing. An alternative method (not using additional lines) to indicate statistical
significance between data points in figures may be more clear. Perhaps using
two different symbols - one for statistical significance between time points across
the same meal condition and a different symbol to indicate statistical significance
between meal condition would be more clear than what's currently used.
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