JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report 
 Effects of tamoxifen on vaginal blood flow and epithelial morphology in the rat. Title: 
 2  14 July 2006 Version: Date: 
 Tufan Tarcan Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is an important study in the field of women's health that investigates the effect of Tamoxifen on vaginal
physiology which remains to be a gap in the literature. Sexual dysfunction is a common but not completely understood problem in women with breast cancer who are under Tamoxifen treatment. The methodology 
including the animal model is appropriate for the purpose of the study, the results are clear and the paper is 
overall well-written. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) 
1. The authors have observed similar findings in Tamoxifen and ovariectomy groups compared to controls 
such as reduced vaginal blood flow, increased estrogen receptor binding and decreased arginase enzyme activity. The only major difference between Tamoxifen and ovariectomy groups was the highly mucified 
vaginal epithelium in Tamoxifen group. The authors have attributed their observations in Tamoxifen and 
ovariectomy groups to ER antagonism and estrogen-deprived state, respectively. However, ovariectomy is also associated with a marked (>%50) decrease of testosterone which can also play a role in the patho-physiological vaginal changes observed after ovariectomy. In addition, we do not exactly know the 
effects of Tamoxifen on testosterone metabolism or receptors in rats. Since, there is no control group with 
testosterone and estrogen replacement in this study, it is not possible to differ the testosterone and estrogen-deprived states from each other. For this reason, I strongly encourage the authors to mention this issue as a weak part of their study in the discussion and also to shortly discuss the possible etiological role 
of testosterone deprivation in their findings. 
2. The term "vaginal physiological function" in the abstract can be replaced by a more correct expression such as "vaginal physiology" or "vaginal function". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions 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.
Reviewer's report 
 Breast Cancer Risk associated with different HRT formulations. A register-based case-control study. Title: 
 1  8 May 2006 Version: Date: 
 Andrea Riccardo Genazzani Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
The paper submitted is articulated, well done and very interesting. Authors face a pivotal aspect of hormone 
replacement therapy: different formulations, route and duration of HRT and breast cancer risk. The 
numbers of the study do not permit to reach final conclusions. However, this work focus on important issues 
and support a more accurate prescription of HRT in women. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 1) Information provided in the abstract is a little elusive. Authors do not provide a real conclusion of the study. Readers only understand the major part of data are not statistically significant. Abstract should be 
re-written focusing on the conclusions of this good work. 
2) In the Discussion section of the paper, authors assert: "BC risk did not vary markedly among different 
HRT formulation". This is just partially correct analyzing the data. As authors still refer in the Discussion, 
"the numbers were too small for some the progestins categories". This is an important point of the debate 
on HRT administration and no-significant data cannot provide differences among different HRT formulation. 
Authors should clarify this issue. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review:
Reviewer's report 
 Breast Cancer Risk associated with different HRT formulations. A register-based case-control study. Title: 
 2  10 August 2006 Version: Date: 
 Andrea Riccardo Genazzani Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The re-submitted paper is well done and authors responded to reviewer's request. Publication is now 
warmly suggested. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 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
Reviewer's report 
 Knowledge About Contraceptive Mode of Action Among Married Women; A Cross-Sectional Study Title: 
 1  16 May 2006 Version: Date: 
 Nirakar Saxena Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
The article investigates the factors associated with correct knowledge about contraceptive mode of action 
among married women using modern contraceptives ( barrier and non-barrier methods) which may enable 
them to make more informed choice and improve compliance and contraceptive efficacy. The question is important, may add critical value addition to family planning counseling. Following clarifications are needed for more clarity and necessary amendments. 
1 Justification for optimum sample size (453 women representing 3243 locally registered women using 
modern contraceptive methods) is unclear. In what sense they represent the universe (give parameter being 
assessed). One needs to elaborate more to justify objectively by way of presenting comparative statistics 
with respect to critical parameters of interest of universe and sampled population. 
2 It is advisable to annex the 10 item questionnaire which has been used after pre-testing or at least list the 
critical questions addressed enabling the reader to learn and appreciate the authorâ €™s efforts. 
3 RESULTS- General Characteristics 
While describing the study population, the contraceptive method of preference was condom (49.1%). Is it 49.1% as written or 41.9% as in the table or has this been derived from in depth interview of the 
respondents. In either of the case Table 1 should be appropriately modified to incorporate above information 
of the paragraph as well as my observations in item no.1. 
4 DISCUSSION- Main Results 
I think the sentence â €œOn the other hand counseled women ------- servicesâ € should be either removed 
as it is based on very small differences ( i.e.OR of 2.9 of non barrier method vs 2.5 of barrier method) which 
are not significant or rephrased to highlight the difference in counseled and non-counseled non-barrier method users in order to maintain the central theme of the article. On the contrary it becomes untenable in 
the light of the reading of the data of Table 3 which reveal that about 68% of the condom users were not 
counseled yet majority of them (75.8%) had correct knowledge of its mode of action. This is correct primarily 
because mode of contraceptive action of condom is fairly simple and easily understandable. 
Finally I support publication of this article subject to the authors agreeing to make necessary amendments 
in the light of the above comments.
Reviewer's report 
 Knowledge About Contraceptive Mode of Action Among Married Women; A Cross-Sectional Study Title: 
 2  5 July 2006 Version: Date: 
 Nirakar Saxena Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
I have gone through the revised manuscript of the article entitled "Knowledge About Contraceptive Mode of 
Action Among Married Women, A Cross Sectional Study" and find that the authors have incorporated 
necessary change in the manuscript as suggested in my earlier review. I therefore support pulication of this 
article in BMC.
Reviewer's report 
 Knowledge About Contraceptive Mode of Action Among Married Women; A Cross-Sectional Study Title: 
 2  13 July 2006 Version: Date: 
 Kavita Nanda Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Most of my concerns have been addressed. 
The language is still difficult to read at times, and needs some editorial work. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 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:
Reviewer's report 
 The effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training alone and with other physical therapies for Title: 
the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women: a systematic review 
 2  20 January 2006 Version: Date: 
 Christian Dannecker Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is a high-quality narrative systematic review (without meta-analysis). The article addresses five important research questions dealing with the following aspects of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT): Effectiveness (PFMT alone or together with adjunctive therapies), different components of 
a PFMT program, factors affecting the outcome of physical therapies, the period of treatment and 
number of treatments, and generalisability of findings in the research settings. Unfortunately the 
authors did not include mixed incontinence, taking into account that very often stress and urge incontinence are present in the same patient. To answer the research questions the authors 
accomplished a comprehensive search of all published an peer-reviewed articles on this topic (1995 
– 2005) and included - in addition to randomized controlled trials - important non randomized studies. The authors explicitly report their methods and search strategies. It is unlikely that 
important, relevant studies were missed. This increases our confidence in the results of the review. 
The inclusion criteria used to select articles are appropriate. The authors clearly state which studies 
were included and why; they presented their rationale. There is, however, no list of excluded trials. 
The validity of the studies was assessed appropriately. The assessment of studies is reproducible 
and was done in duplicate. The levels of agreement are reported. The authors analyzed the 
similarity of the designs and results of the various studies. They clearly state where heterogeneity 
between the studies was to much to draw any conclusions. As an important overall result the 
authors found PFMT alone or in combination with adjunctive therapies to be an effective therapy of female SUI. The conclusions of this review are presented in a manner relevant for clinical practise. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 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
Reviewer's report 
 The effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training alone and with other physical therapies for the Title: 
treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women: a systematic review 
 6  8 May 2006 Version: Date: 
 Peter Herbison Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I have no further comments to make about this article. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report 
 A study of 0.5 Tesla dedicated magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of breast cancer in Title: 
young, high risk women 
 2  26 April 2006 Version: Date: 
 Petrina Causer 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) 
1)The MR images for Figure 2 (c), do not demonstrate what is being stated in the captions. The mass visually appears to have a persistent delayed enhancment pattern on the images. As the kinetic curve 
which is not shown contradicts what is being demonstrated I would recommend also including this. 
2) Figure 2 (c) change well-demarcated to "smooth". 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 
 A study of 0.5 Tesla dedicated magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of breast cancer in Title: 
young, high-risk women 
 3  2 June 2006 Version: Date: 
 Bruce Kimler 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) 
. 
 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: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report 
 Quality of health information for cervical cancer treatment on the internet Title: 
 1  24 April 2006 Version: Date: 
 Maurie Markman Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is an interesting, and timely, report of the quality of information available on the Internet related to 
cancer, in this case specifically cervix cancer. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
The investigators have not provided sufficient detail as regards what was considered to be sufficient to define quality or reliability. Were the specific statements within the site reviewed to determine if the recommendations were accurate and complete, or was the simple recording of recommendations that 
appeared to follow-up a rational approach sufficient for this statement? 
How did the lay individual assess the quality of medical treatments recommended? 
Is it sufficient to have a single lay individual review the material to state the experience of the "public"? Was 
this individual particularly knowledgeable about the topic? 
If references were provided, was the appropriateness of the citations considered in the evaluation of the 
validity of the content? 
Why was it assumed information on "staging" was imperative? Do the investigators feel patients know their 
precise stage, especially in the setting of the complexicity of staging of cervix cancer? Why would a general 
statment regarding the management of "local", "regional" or "metastatic" disease not have been sufficient in 
this area? How was appropriate follow-up defined? What is the "treatment of recurrent" disease that should have been included in Internet sites? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 of limited interest 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 
 Quality of health information for cervical cancer treatment on the internet Title: 
 1  11 May 2006 Version: Date: 
 Gerhard Andersson Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is a well written and intersting survey of web sites dealing with the treatment of cervical cancer. 46 
sites were assessed using a reliable method, but overall the authors found large variations in quality which is much in line with previous similar investigations in the field of internet and medicine. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) Perhaps some coefficient of agreement could be added (eg kappa) for the agreement between raters? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review:
Reviewer's report 
 Quality of health information for cervical cancer treatment on the internet Title: 
 2  6 June 2006 Version: Date: 
 Maurie Markman Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The revisions are OK with me. I would recommend acceptance. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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?:
Reviewer's report 
 Melatonin effects on luteinizing hormone in postmenopausal women: A clinical trial Title: 
NCT00288262 
 1  21 February 2006 Version: Date: 
 Alfred J Lewy Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
It is somewhat daunting to interpret these results when the placebo group appears to have changed 
more than the treatment groups. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
This ms. could be improved in the following ways: 
1) Clarify the prospective hypotheses. Was morning melatonin predicted to have the same or 
different effects compared to evening melatonin? Be more detailed, comprehensive and critical in 
reviewing the literature that led up to these predictions. 
2) Explain the relationship between blood and urinary LH measures. Is it possible that they do not 
correlate? Is one more informative than the other? 
3) Portray the data more clearly in the text and add tables and figures; the one figure describing the 
Methods could be deleted. 
4) Provide a power analysis to support the contention that studying more subjects would be 
informative. Since the baseline/post-treatment difference was by far largest in the placebo group, 
why would the authors not conclude that the use of the 0.5 mg dose administration at approximately 
the usual times for treating circadian phase disorders (at least in the morning for causing phase 
delays) appears not to affect LH levels. By the way, it should be mentioned that giving melatonin earlier in the evening might have caused more of a phase advance in sleep. 
4) Given that the data are unimpressive and that the authors have so much expertise in the area of 
human and animal photoperiodism, why not use this opportunity to exhaustively and critically review the literature on melatonin’s effects (or lack thereof) on the endocrine system, specifically with regard to dose and time of administration? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I am co-inventor on several melatonin use-patents owned by my university currently not licensed to 
any company.