JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Determinants of unmet need for family planning among women in Urban Cameroon: A 
cross sectional survey in the Biyem -Assi Health District, Yaoundé  
 
Version: 0 Date: 17 Nov 2015  
 
Reviewer: Gedefaw  Abeje  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
The manuscript should be rewritten for publication. It follows thesis format. it needs extensive 
formatting. the language also needs revision. detailed comments are attached.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is r equired in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not,  please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
Declaration of competing  interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you  currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have an y other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare tha t I have no competing interests . 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named r eport 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published . 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Reviewer's report
Title:Chronic intermittent abdominal pain in young woman with intestinal
malrotation, Fitz-Hugh-Curtis Syndrome and appendiceal neuroendocrine tumor:
a rare case report and literature review.
Version:3Date:3 February 2015
Reviewer: Mercy Isichei
Reviewer's report:
1.Major compulsory revision:Need to be completely overhauled(rearranged)
before acceptance for publication
2.Minor Essential Revisions:Use of English/grammar need to be reviewed (see
uploaded template)
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:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Chronic intermittent abdominal pain in young woman with intestinal
malrotation, Fitz-Hugh-Curtis Syndrome and appendiceal neuroendocrine tumor:
a rare case report and literature review.
Version:3Date:9 June 2015
Reviewer: Rebecca Beyda
Reviewer's report:
1. Major compulsory revisions: More information about the case presentation is
needed. Pertinent positive and negatives such as sexual history, history of
dysparunia, history of pelvic pain, etc. The "long history of abdominal intermittent
pain" should be expounded upon (line 69). As a clinician, I would like to know as
much as possible about the history and physical prior to imaging and surgical
findings so that I may be alerted to the possibility of these diagnoses earlier.
Additionally, a little more information about FHC should be added (line 155). It
should be noted that the urine test for gonorrhea and chlamydia (GC/CT) may be
negative as PID/FHC are ascending infections. It should also be mentioned that
these may be polymicrobial infections due to anaerobes and other enteric
organisms in addition to GC/CT.
2. Minor Essential Revisions: There may be a difference in grammer when
comparing American to British English, but I identified many errors that should be
corrected. Line 27 and line 75 could be improved to read "No evidence of
effusion...or infection identified." Line 91 missing two words - "true incidence in
older (individuals) is unknown because (the) majority of patients..." Line 143,
missing "trachomatis" after C. Lines 144-147 is a confusing sentance to me.
Lines 167-168 - please ensure units meet the journal specifications. Line 179
disease "is" rare, not "are." Line 194, I would say "no case" instead of "none
case."
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:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:A Scoping Review on Determinants of Unmet Need for Family Planning
among Women of Reproductive Age in Low and Middle Income Countries
Version:1Date:31 August 2015
Reviewer: Brianna Magnusson
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions: None
Minor Essential Revisions: The paper has a number of minor language errors
that should be corrected.
Discretionary Revisions: I find the Tables 2-4 difficult to read and follow. Perhaps
this is my lack of familiarity with this type of review. Perhaps a summary table
would be more useful? I envision this summary table listing, for example, Age of
woman and the number of studies that had a positive, negative or not statistically
significant association.
My biggest frustration with the paper I perceive that the large majority of the
results section in which the authors contextualize the findings are not verifiable
the relatively limited information provided in tables. It is not clear to me if it is
possible to fix this given the study methodology.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Impact of Women's Autonomy on Maternal Health Service Utilization
Version:3Date:4 July 2015
Reviewer: Anne Khasakhala
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. The title may require some amendments instead of "impact" I suggest the
author uses the 'effects". This is because impact cannot be determined from one
data set.
2. The author needs to define what is meant by women status/autonomy earlier
so that the reader can relate to the problem.
3.In section 81 to 82 of the text the author needs to cite evidence of the
statement made
4. Section 118, the author needs to check whether the question on postnatal care
relates to all the births in the five year period or only the last birth.
Discretionary Revisions:
1. Create composite indices for variables on utilization and Autonomy
2. The role of the control variables not clear
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:Impact of Women's Autonomy on Maternal Health Service Utilization
Version:3Date:8 July 2015
Reviewer: Mats Malqvist
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for letting me review this manuscript dealing with an important and
sometimes neglected aspect of maternal health. Women's status is known, both
through research evidence and through pure logic, to have a great impact on
women's health outcomes. As such, this paper is not novel or groundbreaking in
any way, but it contributes an important piece to the body of evidence on the
matter.
I have no major revisions to suggest, but would advise to have a language and
grammar check. I will not go into detail on these reqired changes, but am sure
that it can be handled by the author.
Some minor revisions:
1. Womens autonomy needs to be defined in abstract
2. Confidence intervals needed in table 3
3. Please define PNC, number of visits, timing
4. Were there no missing values on women's autonomy? First line (Decision
making) adds up to 4149, so does Wealth index an some of the other variables in
Table 1 and Table 2.
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:Effect of Women's Autonomy on Maternal Health Service Utilization in
Nepal: A Cross Sectional Study
Version:4Date:13 April 2016
Reviewer: Anne Khasakhala
Reviewer's report:
Thank yet again for according me the opportunity to assess the revised version
of the above paper submitted to your journal. I am satisfied that the author has
attended to the previous comments.
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:Recto-vaginal septum cystadenocarcinoma: a case report and review of the
literature.
Version:3Date:25 February 2015
Reviewer: Pedro Acién
Reviewer's report:
This case report is interesting, but I think the carcinoma is secondary to the
tumor on the left ovary operated 4 years before: 6 cms, “exophytic part adhering
tightly to the rectum and Douglas pouch”. My conclusion would have been to
recommend that in postmenopausic women (59 years of age) and with a
solid/cystic tumor adhered to the rectum, histerectomy and double
salpingooophorectomy is always better than simple left adnexectomy.
Other specific comments are:
Abstract: line 35, I suggest to delete “primary”
Background: line 60, delete “ovarian”. Line 66: insert “recto vaginal septum
carcinoma”.
Case presentation:
Line 76: left ovarian cyst.
Line 76: By laparoscopy or by laparotomy?
Line 81: cystoadenoma of the ovary: which was the histological type?
Discussion:
Line 130-133: OK, but the clinical report and historical records suggest the origin
to be the tumor on the left ovary previously operated on.
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:Recto-vaginal septum cystadenocarcinoma: a case report and review of the
literature.
Version:3Date:1 October 2015
Reviewer: Mark T Wakabayashi
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting article. It is well written. I have no suggestions for any
revisions.
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:Protocol for the psychotherapeutic group intervention for facilitating
posttraumatic growth in nonmetastatic breast cancer patients
Version:2Date:23 September 2014
Reviewer: Jeff Dunn
Reviewer's report:
The authors do propose a novel and interesting idea however the manuscript
requires further development. Key issues:
The case for why an intervention for PTG is needed could better made. More
discussion required about the studies that have already found PTG to improve
after intervention as a secondary outcome; and from this how the present study
links to what is already known. The intervention itself does not appear to be novel
and the components do not appear to link directly to PTG in a clear way, perhaps
the authors could address this.
Finally, the manuscript needs substantive editing for English.
Major revision required.
Reviewer's report
Title:Protocol for the psychotherapeutic group intervention for facilitating
posttraumatic growth in nonmetastatic breast cancer patients
Version:2Date:6 January 2015
Reviewer: Chiara Ruini
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript “Protocol for the Psychotherapeutic Group Intervention for
Facilitating Posttraumatic Growth in Nonmetastatic Breast Cancer Patients”
addresses a relevant topic (the promotion of PTG by a specific therapeutic
intervention) which is receiving increasing attention in clinical settings. However,
the manuscript in its current form presents several flaws, which prevent its
publication. First of all the abstract is not informative. It describes a RCT, without
reporting the main results, but discussing a potential efficacy of this new
intervention.
At the end of the introduction Authors present the main objectives of the study,
but unfortunately they are not in line with the rest of the manuscript. In fact it only
describes the design of this empirical research (participants, assessment,
randomization), without presenting any preliminary data. Authors state that the
research is actually still ongoing. There is no specific reason of publishing this
paper without the completion of this research.
Rather, Authors could focus on the group protocol they developed, describing it
in more details, and providing a theoretical and clinical rationale for the need of
promoting PTG, with the specific steps they selected. In the introduction, Authors
should motivate the reasons why cancer patients should be helped in developing
PTG (clinical and psychological benefits of PTG) . They should review other
similar psychosocial interventions with breast cancer patients (i-e-. meaning
making, support groups, CBT etc…) and differentiate their protocol from existing
approaches. A manuscript presenting innovations in clinical setting could be
much more appealing, and prepare the way for a second paper presenting the
actual empirical data .
Other problematic issues are listed as comments in the PDF file. More details are
needed on the enrollment and randomization procedures, inclusion criteria
(patients without psychiatric disorders? PTSD IS a psychiatric disorder), blind
assessors ? and control condition: is it another group intervention? To test the
efficacy of this new intervention a group setting seems to be the appropriate
source of comparison. However , Authors seem to describe a “treatment as usual
condition” . Please provide more details.
Finally, the English language throughout the manuscript is rather poor and need
professional editing (see yellow highlights in the attached pdf)
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:Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial of a Psychotherapeutic
Intervention for Facilitating Posttraumatic Growth in Nonmetastatic Breast
Cancer Patients
Version:5Date:5 September 2015
Reviewer: Chiara Ruini
Reviewer's report:
The authors successfully addressed most of my previous comments. However,
some minor essential revisions are still necessary before publication.
1. the control condition appears to be a TREATMENT AS USUAL (TAU) , not as
a placebo or other tratment condition. Thus, control condition should be replaced
with TAU. Further, the medical and psychological care provided by the three
different sites should be described in details (n of sessions, individual or Group
session, etc..)
2. exclusion criteria should be better explained. Physical and mental conditions
that compromise participation is not enough (schizophrenia? bipolar disorders?
diabetes...) How are these condition evaluated? during the interview? please
specify
3. the two tables describing the intervention are somewhat general and so not
provide details for protocol replication. Please specify how the various session
contents shoudl be linked to the promotion of PTG. Referring to the
socio-cognitive theory of PTG is not informative
4. The English Language is still poor and contains grammar mistakes and typos
(i.e., have no physical or mental disorder that compromises participation in the
study)
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: Changes in work behavior during pregnancy in rural Anhui, China from 2001 -03 to 2009: 
a population based cross -sectional study  
 
Version: 1 Date: 28 Mar 2016 
 
Reviewer: Matteo  Bonzini  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
I appreciate the hard work authors performed to improve manuscript.  
 
In particular in that second revision activity they implemented a more complete discussion, and 
improved English quality.  
 
All questions I raised were answered, if possible.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable t o assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in  the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in t he manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation  that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relati ng to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the  above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare I have no competing interests'  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will  be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available unde r an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as  confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published . 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Reviewer's report
Title:"Why me? I don't fit the mould ... I am a freak of nature": a qualitative study
of women's experience of gout
Version:1Date:21 October 2015
Reviewer: Philip Robinson
Reviewer's report:
This paper addresses an interesting and novel issue, that of women with gout.
I don’t really have any major issues with the manuscript, it would be really nice to
know a little more about “constructed a coding frame of themes using the method
of constant comparison” – is this a recognised technique, and if so how does it
work in practice. I suspect many researchers reading this work will come from a
biomedical background and have less experience with qualitative research,
knowing a little more about this technique will help understand how the data were
distilled.
The names in the paper after quotes, are this changed, or the real names used
with permission?
I think it would be interesting to think how this work fits more broadly into medical
practice. Are there other conditions that predominately affect one group and are
therefore neglected when they present in others (maybe AS in women, or Fibro
in men). Is there work on this? Can parallels be drawn, are there common
themes?
I think it would be interesting to discuss the finding in Nicola Dalbeth’s paper that
female sex was associated with reached SU target Dalbeth et al. Prescription
and dosing of urate-lowering therapy, rather than patient behaviours, are the key
modifiable factors associated with targeting
serum urate in goutBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2012, 13:174
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:Retrospective Observation of Mental Disorders during Postpartum Period:
Results from the Singapore Mental Health Study
Version:2Date:17 September 2015
Reviewer: Louise Michele Howard
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed my suggestions. I have only one further comment
which is that the last sentence of the abstract is rather unclear - what are the
important implications? Could the authors consider removing this or clarifying?
Reviewer's report
Title:Cytological evaluation of breast lesions in symptomatic patients presenting
to Kenyatta National Hospital, Kenya: a retrospective study
Version:5Date:18 March 2015
Reviewer: Neda A Moatamed
Reviewer's report:
This is a good report and can be published.
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:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'