JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in Egyptian women with unexplained
infertility using real-time PCR. Prospective cohort study
Version:2Date:13 December 2014
Reviewer: Hamdad Farida
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
The article entitled “Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in Egyptian women with
unexplained infertility using real-time PCR” seems interesting, but the prevalence
of 40% has been determined essentially by serology (38%). The prevalence of
chlamydial infection using PCR in real time was 6%. So, the title is in mismatches
with the content of the article, and it should be changed.
On the other hand, what is the immune status of the fertile Egyptian women?
The writing of the article needs to be improved. C. trachomatis should be in
italics, and do not use abbreviations such as IgM + ve or PCR – ve.
Page 10, line 198: screening for the Infection will reduce morbidity and mortality?
What is the reference?
The study should include a control group before publication.
Best Regards,
Dr Farida Hamdad
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in Egyptian women with unexplained
infertility using real-time PCR. Prospective cohort study
Version:2Date:19 December 2014
Reviewer: Frank Bally
Reviewer's report:
This study compares Chlamydia PCR of endocervical swabs to serological
Chlamydia testing in a small population of 50 infertile women in with bilateral
tubal patency by hysterosalpingography/laparoscopy and no history of PID.
3/50 were PCR positive, 19/50 were seropositive.
This is not a prospective cohort study, as there is no intervention and no outcome
depending on a intervention has been measured.
The study mentions the goal, to asses the prevalence of present of past infection
in women with unexplained infertility. A secondary goal was to correlate
anti-sperm antibodies with Chlamydia prevalence.
The study concludes in the discussion that the sero- or PCR-prevalence are
unexpectedly high. The study data do not support this. The authors mention the
absence of data in Egypt they could compare the results to. The comparison to
other studies in Arabic countries fails to mention important differences in
population and technique used for testing. In order to asses this hypothesis, it
would be necessary first to assess the expected prevalence (by serology and/or
PCR) in a control population.
The absence of a correlation between anti-sperm antibodies and Chlamydia
prevalence does not exclude such a correlation due to a limited sample size,
apparently due to a limited budget for PCR. No sample size calculations in order
to have sufficient study power were done.
It can be understood from the text that the real purpose of the study was to
compare the (cheaper) serology to the (expensive) PCR to diagnose active
Chlamydia infection. This pilot study resulted indeed in a policy change: After the
study all seropositive infertile women (and their partners) would receive treatment
for Chlamydia. This could (should) be declared as the purpose of the study. It
would need a discussion on the impact of over-treatment (impact and cost of
treatment without active infection), and that of under-treatment (one of three
PCR-positive infections was sero-negative).
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:Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in Egyptian women with unexplained
infertility using real-time PCR. Prospective cohort study
Version:2Date:15 January 2015
Reviewer: xiong likuan
Reviewer's report:
In this study, “Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in Egyptian women with
unexplained infertility using real-time PCR ”#the authors have investigated the
prevalence of Chlamydia infection in women with unexplained infertility using
ELISA and real-time PCR techniques. Although the topic has practical
significance to some extent, there are several issues should be addressed.
(1) The study is not a prospective cohort design;
(2) For tables, the results should be presented with standard three-line tables
with statistical values;
(3) The sample size of this study is relatively small, resulting in actual frequency
equal to zero or theoretical frequency less than 5;
(4) The statements of some statistical values are confused, for example, “this
finding was statistically significant” in the 170th line;
(5) The writing English needs to be improved.
(6) Generally, For neither NAAT nor ELISA were the gold criteria of Ct detection,
the present article should explain strategy of method selection.
(7) The title was "Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in Egyptian women with
unexplained infertility using real-time PCR", but in present article, ELISA and
ASA take a relatively larger part. And the results by real-time PCR was not
discussed in details.
(8) Line 87: This study should be conducted under the approval by ethics
committee for the sampling on certain cohorts, but there was no related
information in present article.
(9) Line 107-110: The reason why to choose sequences of that 5 serotypes
rather than commonly used general primer for designing relate primers were
unkown.
(10) Line 118-120: The volume of the amplication system (20ml for total with 5ml
DNA templates) was too big (commonly with µl level).
(11) Format in present article. For example, Chlamydia trachomatis was not all
italicized.
Reviewer's report
Title:Communicating under medical patriarchy: gendered doctor-patient
communication between female patients with overactive bladder and male
urologists in Hong Kong
Version:4Date:6 April 2015
Reviewer: Pytha Albers
Reviewer's report:
General remarks
The question posed by the author is an interesting one and worth researching. A
qualitative research method with a phenomenological approach is most
adequate. The study is overall well written and adds new knowledge on the lived
experiences of women with OAB with the communication with their male
urologists in China, Hong Kong. Thank you very much for the English editing.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
Thank you for adding a new section on research rigor where you describe the
validity checking with the participants and your additional remarks in your data
analysis and discussion.
However, my major concern is the validity of your data since there are no
co-authors involved in your research which is unusual especially in qualitative
data-analysis.
Was any Medical Ethical Committee involved that approved your study protocol?
Did the participants give their signed informed consent for the use of these data
and the member check?
Minor essential Revisions and discretionary Revisions
The revisions are well done.
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:Communicating under medical patriarchy: gendered doctor-patient
communication between female patients with overactive bladder and male
urologists in Hong Kong
Version:4Date:3 April 2015
Reviewer: Doreth Teunissen
Reviewer's report:
see letter
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:beta-hCG changes during spontaneous resolution in tubal ectopic
pregnancies
Version:1Date:9 February 2015
Reviewer: Reihaneh Hosseini
Reviewer's report:
Although the subject of the manuscript entitled “beta-hCG changes during
spontaneous
resolution in tubal ectopic pregnancies” is not a novel issue, it explains a
common problem
which could be a guide for both patient and clinician. But the article needs some
compulsory
revisions.
1) In page 4, line 87: The study design is not “cohort” and it needs to be
corrected.
2) The criteria for eligible women should be described clearly, for example the
maximum size of ectopic pregnancy or free fluid in sonography.
3) The authors should describe interval of #- hCG tests clearly. It seems that
there was not any regular plan for patients follow up.
4) In page 5 line 97, serum #- hCG below 5 IU/L and urinary pregnancy test are
not the same.
5) In page 6 line 137, 218/474 patients were managed surgically and 256/474
patients were followed conservatively. What about medical management? Did
you have medical management in your center?
6) It is better to use “fit line” and “R2” in scatter plots.
7) In table 1 you should report confidence interval for adjusted and unadjusted
values.
8) The authors could consider the causes of failure in expectant management in
68 patients out of 226 and compare their risk factors.
9) The study is based on data from 158 patients and although it presents
valuable data, the sample size is not sufficient to suggest a model.
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:beta-hCG changes during spontaneous resolution in tubal ectopic
pregnancies
Version:1Date:17 February 2015
Reviewer: STAMATIOS PETOUSIS
Reviewer's report:
The article deals with an interesting and useful point of clinical practice, which is
the expected interval of normalization of b-hCG levels after administration of
MTX in ectopic tubal pregnancies. The article is well-written, the statistical
analysis has strength points, however, there are certain issues to be revised.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The authors do not clearly define the inclusion and exclusion criteria of their
study. Given the fact that the study is retrospective, it is of great importance to
define exactly the characteristics of cases needed to be included and not just
mention that these have been published inanother study.
2. This remark is strongly associated with the previous as well. The authors do
not report in detail the follow-up of pregnancies treated with MTX. When did they
perfrom b-hCG measures? When did they perform ultrasound? How many
examinations were performed for each patient? Did it depend on the case or it
was a standard protocol followed for all women?
3. Authors need to mention the limitations of their study in the last paragraph of
Discussion section. This is a retrospective study which on its own is a major
limitation, especially as the study deals with multiple b-HCG values.
4. A flowchart of patients included according to eligibility criteria should be
encorporated.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. The comment related with gefitinib in the Introduction study is rather irrelevant
and I would suggest to be excluded.
2. The authors should explain what are the minimal symptoms reported in
Methods section.
3. In the results section, the authors report “a tubal ectopic pregnancies”. This
should be revised.
General comments
1. The question posed by authors is well defined.
2. The methods need to be improved regarding the specific report of inclusion
and exclusion criteria.
3. The data is interesting and have clinical value.
4. The figures are accurate and no signs of manipulation are observed.
5. The manuscript rather adheres to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition.
6. The discussion and conclusions are well balanced and adequately supported
by the data.
7. The limitations of the study are not stated and this is a point which should
definitely be revised.
8. The authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building, both
published and unpublished.
9. The abstract should report in a greater extention the main results of the study
10. The writing is acceptable, however, revision should be made in certain points.
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:
THERE IS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Reviewer's report
Title:Bacterial vaginosis, candidal, trichomonal and Gonococcal vaginal
infections and group B Streptococcus colonization in women of reproductive age
at Felegehiwot referral Hospital, Ethiopia: A cross sectional study
Version:1Date:26 March 2015
Reviewer: Sameer Valsangkar
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. In the methods section, it is mentioned that 409 women participated in the
study and were selected by simple random sample. Please mention the sampling
frame i.e. the number of women visiting the antenatal care and gynecology clinic
during the study period to estimate the representativeness of the sample.
2. Table 1 mentions 195 pregnant women and 214 non pregnant women. In table
3, the sum of the first, second and third trimester participants adds up to 214.
One of the table is in error apparently.
3. Table 1 mentions 261 women who were asymptomatic. It is unclear how many
of them visited the hospital for antenatal care.
It would also be interesting to know the reason for the hospital visit among
non-pregnant women who were asymptomatic as this would bear tremendous
implications on screening.
4. While the sample size has been calculated for a single population proportion
and the term prevalence has been used several times in the discussion, a
caveat/limitation needs to be added that this is a hospital based study and the
occurrence of infection and antibiotic sensitivity may not be representative of the
community.
Discretionary Revisions
1. The results can be mentioned with the corresponding tables to improve
readability. Currently, the reader has to skip back and forth between tables
several times during the section.
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:Bacterial vaginosis, candidal, trichomonal and Gonococcal vaginal
infections and group B Streptococcus colonization in women of reproductive age
at Felegehiwot referral Hospital, Ethiopia: A cross sectional study
Version:1Date:31 March 2015
Reviewer: sanusi ibrahim
Reviewer's report:
See attached file please.
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 do not have competing interest
Reviewer's report
Title:Relationships between vertebral fractures, sex hormones and vitamin D in
Moroccan postmenopausal women: a cross sectional study.
Version:2Date:2 March 2015
Reviewer: Ana Paula P Barbosa
Reviewer's report:
I congratulate the authors because this is a very interesting study; however this
manuscript is not acceptable for publication in its present form. So, I recommend
that the authors please revise the paper according to the enclosed comments:
GENERAL COMMENTS
-I recommend that the authors have the manuscript checked by a native speaker
of English, because there are problems with the writing and with the English
grammar. The authors need to get editorial help for the entire manuscript.
Examples:
Line 94: were entered…..
Line 277/278: high.. prevalence
Line 182: neck?
Line 294: this
-Also regarding the limitations of the study, authors could discuss future studies
more accurately.
PARTICULAR COMMENTS
The introduction
-It should focus more on the aims of the paper and the scientific reasons of the
paper, based on the works on this subject in the literature (example: vitamin D).
The methods:
- It is not clear how subjects were recruited. Usually the recruitment and
exclusion are demonstrated in a flow chart (“study profile”), but authors are free
to include it or not.
-the authors should clarify that the subjects were not taking calcium, vitamin D,
SERMS and hormone therapy.
The results:
-The authors should provide the lab reference values for the biochemical
measurements.
-The authors should review the writing “means ± SD” for all the manuscript. See
line 149.
-Lines 196 to 202: the correlations should be confirmed, because there are
contradictory results.
-Regarding the vitamin D results, how can the authors explain the normal PTHi
results?
The discussion:
- line 265 authors should include the references of the studies.
-The authors might also consider discussing whether some of the vertebral
fractures were actually traumatic. Even in the elderly vertebral fractures may not
always be "osteoporotic".
Moreover, other etiologies for the vertebral fractures should be discussed.
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, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Reviewer's report
Title:Clinical diagnosis of endometriosis: a scoping review
Version:5Date:25 November 2014
Reviewer: Theodoros Kalampokas
Reviewer's report:
The review is very good and scientifically interesting.
However, it is a very common topic and it does not add anything new.
Very good methodology; should not feel discouraged for trying something, more
"innovative".
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:Clinical diagnosis of endometriosis: a scoping review
Version:5Date:10 December 2014
Reviewer: Chao-Yu Guo
Reviewer's report:
The authors reviewed articles from 2000 to 2013 related to clinical diagnosis of
endometriosis. Summary tables were provided to describe findings in the 39
papers included.
Major concerns:
1. The manuscript is deemed more suitable for a review article, instead of a
research paper, since the manuscript contains no scientific evidence for the
clinical diagnosis of endometriosis and no statistical analysis was performed.
2. The review included papers up to 2013, how about the recent development in
2014?
3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were restricted to pelvic endometriosis.
However, the abstract didn’t mention pelvic, which may mislead the readers.
4. Conclusion is short on page 15. It would be good to give clear guidelines for
clinical diagnosis of endometriosis, since the manuscript aims to study this issue.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
None
Reviewer's report
Title:The business of death: a qualitative study of financial concerns of widowed
older women
Version:2Date:9 January 2015
Reviewer: Troy Andersen
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer's report
-----------------
Please number your comments and divide them into
- Major Compulsory Revisions None
- Minor Essential Revisions
Comment #1: A statement is unclear and there is a possible missed citation.
- Discretionary Revisions
Comment #2: Suggests defining a term that is clear only to those within the
Australian system.
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:Fluorescence spectroscopy combined with 5-aminolevulinic acid for in vivo
detection of cervical premalignancies
Version:1Date:12 January 2015
Reviewer: Bram ter Harmsel
Reviewer's report:
see attachment
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:The Economic Consequences of Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, and
Child Health Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic
Literature Review
Version:1Date:12 November 2014
Reviewer: Haimanti Bhattacharya
Reviewer's report:
The Economic Consequences of Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, and Child
Health Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic
Literature Review
This paper conducted a review of the literature on reproductive, maternal,
newborn and child health (RMNCH) interventions. The paper systematically
summarizes the effects of RMNCH interventions on different dimensions of
well-being from 29 different studies. The literature has primarily focused on the
health dimension of human well-being, with a few studies assessing the
economic impacts. The paper rightfully highlights the need for maintaining
longitudinal databases to facilitate evaluation of the economic effects of RMNCH
interventions on economic well-being. The paper does a good job of synthesizing
the literature to highlight the main strands of findings and the limitations. I
recommend accepting the paper subject to minor revision.
Minor comment
The conclusion, “we also found, compared to females, males had higher
economic returns from maternal and childhood participation in RMNCH
interventions”, is far too strong given the evidence.
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