JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Perceptions and barriers of vaccinating daughters with Human
Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination among mothers in Hong Kong
Version:2Date:14 February 2014
Reviewer: Suzanne Dyson
Reviewer's report:
1. This is an important study that is overall well written, interesting and adds
important new knowledge. It does however show that the author's first language
is not English. I strongly recommend that the paper should be copy edited for
English expression by an editor with expertise in academic editing.
2. Methods section overall: This section seems lengthy and to read somewhat
like a thesis chapter rather than a paper. Think about revising the section
3. Page 5, Gardasil and Cervatrix are introduced. Later in the paper there are
many references to the recent nature of the vaccines, it should be noted on page
5 when the vaccine was released and when it was made available in Hong Kong.
4. Page 10: you raise a question about the period of efficacy for the HPV
vaccine, perhaps think about raising this issue in the introduction as well.
5. Methods (page 6) the author first says that individual semi structured
interviews were conducted. She than says that interviews were conducted
one-on-one which is redundant therefore not needed.
6. Page 7: unclear sentence: "to protect participants' privacy and confidentiality
no identifiers of participants were mentioned throughout the interviews". Please
clarify.
7. Page 8: unclear sentence: "Quick data analysis was conducted during
interviews to ensure what was known and what needed to be explored further" I
am unfamiliar with analysis during an interview. Please clarify.
8. Page 9: "emic understanding" is a specific anthropological term, think about
using plain language.
9. Page 9: you detail the employment status of the women, what about their
education status? Was this collected? Did it make any difference to participant
attitudes?
10. Page 19: you raise the matter of cultural values in relation to sexual début
and transmission of HPV, however there is no mention in the paper of men's role
in transmission. This might be a good place to mention this, and lack of focus
among participants in this as a risk. Even if a woman has only one partner, her
male partner may have other sexual partners.
11. Page 20: the author discusses the role of primary care doctors as prevention
education. In the data (see quote from P25) the participants do not appear to
understand doctors as having this role. There may be a disconnect between
earlier biomedical discourses about doctors as healers, and more recent ones
about doctors as promoting health and well being that is worth drawing attention
to.
12. Page 22: Limitations - Think about adding that a future study about
knowledge and understanding about HPV, vaccines and health promoting
behaviours with primary care providers is needed.
Level of interest: An article of importance 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:Perceptions and barriers of vaccinating daughters with Human
Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination among mothers in Hong Kong
Version:2Date:31 March 2014
Reviewer: Eleanor Holroyd
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
These are not clear
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
adequate, but not well supported, little attention to rigor and theory, clouded by
poor English
3. Are the data sound?
yes
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?
needs stronger implications for health service provision in a Chinese context
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
yes
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished? yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
yes
9. Is the writing acceptable?
No needs an English editor
Reviewer's report
Title:Breast Tuberculosis in North East IRAN: Review of 22 Cases
Version:2Date:20 March 2014
Reviewer: Cetin Ç Tanrikulu
Reviewer's report:
good designed study.
But # cannot found sputum or other materials microbiological results.
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Breast Tuberculosis in North East IRAN: Review of 22 Cases
Version:2Date:31 March 2014
Reviewer: Spyros Marinopoulos
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Manuscript should be checked for grammatical errors and language editing.
2. In the Summary section, surgical and pharmacological treatment results
should be mentioned.
3. In the Summary section, the conclusions should include a statement based on
the study results specifically for Iran.
4. In "Patients and methods" section, the authors should try to state clearly the
methodology steps of diagnosis employed.
5. The part that refers to the initial choice of treatment (surgical or
pharmacological) requires clarification as to what led you to the specific choice.
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:A simple and feasible questionnaire to estimate menstrual blood loss:
relationship with hematological and gynecological parameters in young women
Version:1Date:17 March 2014
Reviewer: Angel Remacha
Reviewer's report:
An interesting work dealing with estimation of menstrual blood loss.
Major Compulsory Revisions
MBL calculation method is nor very clear (pag 7) because MBL is included in the
equation. It has to be clarified.
MBL score is different in several univariate variable a Multivariate analysis should
be done to avoid confounding variables including all univariate significant
variables.
Why is MBL score negatively related with Platelet? The contrary should be
expected.
Minor Essential Revisions
Definition of Menorrhagia should be > (not <) 80 (page 4) and discussion
Discretionary Revisions
After reference 7 add " and to avoid further unnecessary exams"
A reference related to prevalence of anemia, such as
Kassebaum NJ, Jasrasaria R, Naghavi M, et al. A systematic analysis of global
anemia burden from 1990 to 2010. Blood. 2014;123(5):615-624.
could be added
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: 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:A simple and feasible questionnaire to estimate menstrual blood loss:
relationship with hematological and gynecological parameters in young women
Version:1Date:26 March 2014
Reviewer: Dirk Wildemeersch
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? YES
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described? YES
3. Are the data sound? YES
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? YES
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? NO
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished? N/A
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? YES
9. Is the writing acceptable? ENGLISH MUST BE CORRECTED
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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' below
Reviewer's report
Title:Tubal ectopic pregnancy two years after laparoscopic hysterectomy
Version:2Date:5 March 2014
Reviewer: Nalini Gupta
Reviewer's report:
General comments-
The case does not provide any new information. As ectopic pregnancies
although uncommon are described occasionally in women after hysterectomy.
Major revision-
1. The background is too lengthy and there is hardly any discussion.
2. The case should be more discussed in reference to previous reports.
3. Pathology can be described more, whether chorionic villi were seen on
histopathological examination.
This case report is not acceptable in the present form.
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:Tubal ectopic pregnancy two years after laparoscopic hysterectomy
Version:2Date:2 April 2014
Reviewer: Donald Fylstra
Reviewer's report:
I consider bringing attention to post hysterectomy ectopic pregnancies very
important, and I think the frequency is increasing.
Correction of wording, grammar and syntext:
Abstract first paragraph:
Should read: but it must be kept in mind in women with a history of hysterectomy
"who present with abdominal pain."
Delete "child bearing age"
Since "first described" by Wendeler
Abstract second paragraph
Delete "the last"
What is "Ovular"
Background second paragraph
"since first described by Wendeler"
Replace "is" with "was" third paragraph: in a few cases vaginal bleeding was...
Background fifth paragraph
There is no reference #56.
Change wording: favor ectopic is a fallopian tube prolapse into the vagina"
Background sixth paragraph:
The commend: pregnancy testing immediately before the procedure could help
determine: this is NOT true (pregnancy testing is usually negative, unless a
pregnancy is suspected, such as a missed period.)
Case presentation first paragraph
Replace supravesical with supracervical
Case presentation second paragraph
The abdomen proved "tender" (not painful)
Case presentation third paragraph
We performed a bilateral salpingectomy with the preservation of both ovaries:
How do the authors expect to prevent another ectopic; a fistula tract much has
been present in the vagina.
The authors bibliography is very limited given over 60 post-hysterectomy
ectopics have been reported
Overall, this manuscript can be considerable improved, and if so, would consider
a re-review
Reviewer's report
Title:Malaria morbidity among pregnant women on combined insecticide treated
nets (ITNs) and intermittent preventive treatment (IPTp) with sulphadoxine -
pyrimethamine in Yaounde, Cameroon.
Version:2Date:29 October 2013
Reviewer: Anthony Mbonye
Reviewer's report:
Review Report
Title: Malaria morbidity among pregnant women on combined insecticide treated
nets (ITNs) and IPTp with SP in Yaounde Cameroon.
General Comments:
1. Research question: Not stated
2. Objectives: not clear
3. Methods: poor, no statistical details shown and sample size calculation
4. Results: poorly presented
5. Discussion: Poor
6. General write-up: – Fair
7. Conclusion: Reject
Specific comments:
Abstract: In the background, the authors state that malaria burden remains
unaltered in low resourced countries. This is not true. Authors should read the
recent WHO releases on malaria burden that show that there is a decline in
malaria burden at least in some countries. In the results section it is shown that
there two arms, is this true?
Methods
The aim of the study should be rephrased to indicate that the authors wanted to
identify risk factors to new malaria attacks.
It is indicated in the methods section that there was both verbal and written
consent, which patient received which? How was sleeping under ITNs assessed?
How were women evaluated for clinical malaria? On regular visits or when they
came to the clinics? How about those who didn’t come on regular visits or stayed
at home? How were they assessed?
Quantification of serum plasmodium density: wasn’t it important to assess
Parasite densities before women were given SP? And compare this with
densities
after doses of SP.
The conventional way to get parasite density is to do a logarithmic
transformations then do an antilog, why wasn’t this method used?
Statistical analysis: Which spreadsheets were used to enter data?
Where is sample size calculation and its justification?
What was the primary outcome?
Result: There should be a table to give background characteristics of women
studied.
Discussions:
The first three paragraphs are not fit to be in the discussion section. They should
be merged with the background section.
The paragraph beginning with education should go to the results section
How are the last two paragraphs of the discussion section linked?
What were the limitations of the methods?
Any areas for further research?
What are the immediate policy implications?
Reviewer's report
Title:Malaria morbidity among pregnant women on combined insecticide treated
nets (ITNs) and intermittent preventive treatment (IPTp) with sulphadoxine -
pyrimethamine in Yaounde, Cameroon.
Version:3Date:28 December 2013
Reviewer: Stephen Rogerson
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript by Prof Mbu and colleagues only partly addresses my
previous comments. A more detailed response to reviews would have made it
easier to assess the changes made, and tracking changes on the manuscript
(rather than highlighting new words in red) would have also made it easier to see
what has been cut (if anything) in response to some of the suggestions I and the
other reviewer made. The authors should revert to my original review and submit
a more detailed response to it “line by line” as is standard practice. In so doing
they will not overlook many of the points I have raised which I will not reiterate
here. Examples such as continuing to refer to “serum” plasmodium density show
a lack of care in preparation of the revised paper, which is highly disappointing.
Major criticisms:
1. The biggest issue for me remains a clear contradiction between the methods
and the results. The methods still state that “a pregnant woman recruited at the
antenatal clinic who did not present with symptomatic malaria and who was
matched for parity and gestational age was enrolled for comparism (sic)”. If
“matched” then the parity (and, probably, gravidity) of these 166 women should
be the same as that of the “case” population. Yet Table 1 reports them as being
quite different. How are these odds ratios defined, or how are the controls
selected? Table 1 says there are 116 cases while the text states 166. Until this is
properly explained the paper is not acceptable.
2. The literature cited is still neither complete nor relevant. The excuse offered,
that the authors did not know of a paper when they wrote the manuscript, does
not allow them not to include this relevant information in their revision especially
as these papers are in an open access journal. There also remain a number of
papers cited which are of negligible relevance to the article, which is less of a
concern.
Minor comments:
1. There are still areas in the paper where drugs are spelled using capital letters
(Quinine Sulphate)
2. Table- numbers of cases state 116 not 166. Last line should be >10 weeks not
exactly 10 weeks. Title is incorrect these are not all “Outcomes”.
3. References 9 and 26 contain spelling errors
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:Malaria morbidity among pregnant women on combined insecticide treated
nets (ITNs) and intermittent preventive treatment (IPTp) with sulphadoxine -
pyrimethamine in Yaounde, Cameroon.
Version:3Date:13 January 2014
Reviewer: Anthony Mbonye
Reviewer's report:
General Comments:
The manuscript has undergone some revisions but given the fact that the authors
haven’t addressed the major comments raised by me and other reviewers, I
recommend you reject this manuscript.
Specifically:
1. We wanted to know how the 166 cases were selected and this has not been
given. This is an important consideration for this manuscript.
2. Specific data on parasitaemia was requested but this has not been given and
there is no j explanation for this.
3. The sample size calculation and assumptions were requested and these have
not been given and there is no explanation for this.
4. The discussion section has sections that are supposed to be in the
background section eg the second and third paragraphs. In addition, the last
paragraph before the conclusion is hanging.
5. The limitations of the study are not discussed.
Reviewer's report
Title:Malaria morbidity among pregnant women on combined insecticide treated
nets (ITNs) and intermittent preventive treatment (IPTp) with sulphadoxine -
pyrimethamine in Yaounde, Cameroon.
Version:4Date:25 March 2014
Reviewer: Anthony Mbonye
Reviewer's report:
This is to confirm that I have looked at the revisions and they have been largely
responded to. Iam satisfied with responses
Reviewer's report
Title:Health-Related Quality of Life and Influencing Factors among Rural
Left-Behind Wives in Liuyang, China
Version:1Date:12 January 2014
Reviewer: Boliang Guo
Reviewer's report:
I would suggest this manuscript should be accepted for publishing if the author
could address some issues which should be regarded as minor essential revision
.
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Health-Related Quality of Life and Influencing Factors among Rural
Left-Behind Wives in Liuyang, China
Version:1Date:7 March 2014
Reviewer: Simone Vigod
Reviewer's report:
Introduction is clear, concise and well-structured. Sampling methods were
appropriate, with an excellent (almost unbelievable) response rate. Results were
straightforward as were the implications of findings and the contexualization
within existing literature. Limitations were appropriately addressed.
Major compulsory revisions:
1. I’m not sure that I understand why the SF-36 outcome was dichotomized in
this way. Has this method been used in other studies? It was referenced, but
should be explained more fully.
2. The logistic regression appears to have been done appropriately, although the
exact method for determining the final model should be explained (i.e. how was
the model building done? How was the final model chosen?).
Minor essential revisions:
Abstract:
1. Second sentence does not make sense.
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:Age at Menarche in relation to nutritional status and critical life events
among girls in Urban and Rural Secondary Schools in Post Conflict Northern
Uganda
Version: 2Date:16 June 2013
Reviewer: dharampal dambhare
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions:
very good that this study was conducted to study the Age at Menarche in relation
to nutritional status and critical life events among girls in Urban and Rural
Secondary Schools in Post Conflict Northern Uganda .
But it required to avoid selection bias in the study.
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:Age at Menarche in relation to nutritional status and critical life events
among girls in Urban and Rural Secondary Schools in Post Conflict Northern
Uganda
Version: 2Date:17 June 2013
Reviewer: Desalegn Zegeye
Reviewer's report:
Overall the paper is good and interesting. It is an important topic that could
improve reproductive health of adolescents.
Major Compulsory Revisions
The result section is too short. No description of the socio-demographic
characteristics and the outcome variable provided.
In the discussion section, age at menarche and determinants should be discuss
in detail.
Minor essential revisions
In the objective section of the Abstract, stress was considered as an independent
variable but never mentioned in the result section.
The type of statistical test used to compare the age at menarche should also be
stated in the methods section.
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:"If you can't treat HPV, why test for it?" Women's attitudes to the changing
face of cervical cancer prevention - a focus group study.
Version:1Date:30 December 2013
Reviewer: Leslie Massad
Reviewer's report:
This paper presents results of focus group study from 2007-8 on HPV
vaccination and screening. In any revision, the authors should consider the
following (all considered major/compulsory).
Abstract
1) The lead conclusion is that women are attached to cytology, but there is no
mention of surveying women about attitudes toward cytology in the Methods or
Results. How was this determined?
General
2) The focus groups were conducted in 2007-8. Results on HPV vaccination are
probably no longer valid and should be removed. These results are also unlikely
to be valid because women were asked about vaccine acceptability but are
beyond the target ages for vaccination (prior to sexual debut). The paper should
focus on acceptability of HPV as a screening tool.
Results
3) How do we know that the 59 women in 10 focus groups are representative of
the Irish population? If we don't know, how can we be certain that results are
valid and generalizable?
Discussion
4) As in the abstract, the lead conclusion is women's trust in cytology, but there
are no results presented to show this. Methods describing how this trust was
measured and results showing how the intensity of trust was determined must be
presented.
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 I have no competing interests.